Spring 2007 Shakespeare Matters page 1

8:1 “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments...” Winter 2009

Oxford’s Railing Muse

By Michael Delahoyde

n her stand-up comedy show, Brett Butler describes her ex- Ihusband with unsuccessfully suppressed animosity: I was married really young. Well, I was 19. That’s young here but in Georgia I was a spinster. I was too. I was married to a redneck from a place called Bunnykill, Alabama. I kid you not; I am serious. I’m not making this up. O that I were. And maybe I Benedick and Beatrice are not happy with the Grand shouldn’t say “redneck”; maybe that’s simplistic and pejorative. Poobahs of the Shakespeares-R-Us International. I shall elaborate. I wasn’t married to a redneck; I was married

(Continued on p. 20) Benedick and Beatrice’s Excellent Adventure Fourth Annual Joint Confer- By Benedick

ence: de Vere Bio Series Pre- “Please your Majesty,” said the Knave, “I didn’t write it, and they can’t prove that I did: there’s no name signed at the end.” pared to Rock Cable TV? “If you didn’t sign it,” said the King, “that only makes matters worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an By Howard Schumann honest man.” — Lewis Carroll oted Oxfordian Mark Anderson told a jointly sponsored conference of The Shakespeare Fellowship and The n case you thought that the Liliputians were disorganized, Shakespeare Oxford Society that John Christian Plum- under-equipped, and underfunded, not to mention poorly N informed, here is some good news: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. mer, a freelance director/writer/producer who this year served as I director of the Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival, has optioned On June 17, 2006, your correspondent emailed the coor- his book, Shakespeare By Another Name. The Conference took dinator of programs for the Shakespeares-R-Us World Congress th th place from October 9 to October 12 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel (Continued on p. 13) in White Plains, N.Y., and featured presentations by prominent Oxfordians including renowned scholars and educators. Editor’s Note: Publication of a pseudonymous article in Shakespeare By Another Name holds that Shakespeare’s Shakespeare Matters breaks an extended tradition based on celebrated plays are remarkably autobiographical. According to the principle that “honest men” (and women) should sign John Christian Plummer and screenwriter James Biederman, names to their opinions. However, the story recounted here (Continued on p. 6) by “Benedick” is so remarkable that a decision was made to suspend this tradition and instead to indulge in the “Shake- spearean” premise, “invest me in motley...” In the interest of Michael Delahoyde, Ph.D., is a clinical Associate Professor of protecting the idealist from the authoritarian, the names of all English at Washington State University. characters in this account have naturally been modified. page 2 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

Southampton, as the keepsakes of a great literary authority. Letters: ancestor. There are indications that great- And as Farina indicates, there are ness is inextricably linked to these books striking parallels between de Vere’s and as sources for the production of plays. Coriolanus’ origins. The same goes for Dear Editor, Holinshed, Plutarch, Castiglione — they James I: a father removed, a child left reverberate through the Shakespeare helpless but with motives of revenge in The latest SM arrived this week and works as well. the midst of corrupt antagonists. has been a great read. I particularly ap- Tying de Vere to Coriolanus or any Whether the play had topical refer- preciate your review of the new book on Shakespeare play is a matter of cumulative ence, we do not know in any great detail. Kenneth Burke and Waugaman’s review deduction, as long as the known facts com- But Southampton almost lost his life in of Nuttall. I have found Nuttall’s Twayne’s ply. We needn’t apologize that the story is 1601 opposing the devious policies of Timon to be especially insightful as regards obscure. de Vere seems to have intended Queen Elizabeth’s principal Secretary, the Greek sources in that play. Again, like that. And the Cecils did what he couldn’t. Robert Cecil. And Coriolanus appeared the good doctor says, he backs away from It isn’t an unwelcome burden. If logical after the succession of James I. A tracery ever stepping over the edge of authorship, inquiry works for finding a murderer, it of historical reality, even one reconstructed but he opened up some pretty wonder- will work identifying a tragic genius of the after 400 years, resembles bees circling ful avenues for understanding Timon’s modern age. Derisions aren’t relevant in the hive. ‘greater Greek’. comparison. For instance, returning to the book William Ray Earl Showerman, MD list, it is clear by the very existence of Willits, CA Ashland, OR Coriolanus that its author accepted Casti- References glione’s imperative that a courtier exercise Dear Editor, beneficial influence upon his prince. Cas- The Atlantic, October 1991, 78. tiglione’s Courtier advises the nobleman Really good issue. I thought of some- to “draw the prince away from every evil Baldesar Castiglione, The Book of the thing about William Farina’s discussion of design and lead him into the path of virtue.” Courtier (trans. Friench Simpson), Coriolanus. Coriolanus is the perfect cautionary tale Ungar, NY, 1959, 50. William Farina connects the “Shake- of the tyrant usurping power. Plutarch speare” play Coriolanus and Edward de thought so. Shakespearean plays char- Vere, noting in particular that de Vere, acteristically rely upon such traditional (Continued on p. 28) “19-years-old and convalescing at Wind- sor Castle, purchased a copy of the Amyot Plutarch’s Lives. This is a documented Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are fact, as the record for the transaction still Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). Family The Shakespeare Fellowship or institution subscriptions are $45 per year. exists in Lord Burghley’s account books.” Please address correspondence to: Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. Since the Amyot translation of Please send subscription requests to: Plutarch figures so centrally in the play Editorial Offices and canon generally, it is intriguing to P.O. Box 65335 The Shakespeare Fellowship Baltimore, MD 21209 consider another documented fact. The PO Box 421 Atlantic October 1991 issue related that Editor: Hudson, MA 01749 Roger Stritmatter, PhD de Vere’s great-granddaughter married The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship into the Wentworth family in Yorkshire. is to promote public awareness and acceptance Contributing Editors: That house’s ancestral library was sold of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Mark Anderson, Lynne Kositsky, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), at Sotheby’s in 1948, the lot including Dr. Earl Showerman and further to encourage a high level of schol- the Amyot Plutarch’s Lives, which was, Dr. Ren Draya, Dr. Michael Delahoyde arly research and publication into all aspects of Howard Schumann, significantly to me, inscribed by Henry Shakespeare studies, and also into the history and Dr. Richard Waugaman, Alex McNeil, culture of the Elizabethan era. Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. William Boyle, Richard Whalen, The Society was founded and incorporated Castiglione’s 1562 edition of Il Cortegiano Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is was another volume in the collection, chartered under the membership corporation laws Phone (Baltimore, MD): (410) 764-9202 of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit as were Holinshed’s 1587 Chronicles, email: [email protected] (Fed ID 04-3578550). Turbervile’s 1575 Noble Art of Venerie or All contents copyright ©2009 Dues, grants and contributions are tax-de- The Shakespeare Fellowship Hunting, and Hakluyt’s Voyages. ductible to the extent allowed by law. From this combination of facts, it Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. seems quite plausible that de Vere’s per- Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed sonal books were passed down through by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the the family, which evidently included Fellowship as a literary and educational organization. Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 3

From a Never Writer to an Ever Reader: News...

n article by two Oxfordian scholars who argued Late last year, the Shakespeare Quarterly, published by the against the Strachey letter as a supposed source for Folger Shakespeare Library, printed a response to Stritmatter A The Tempest have drawn a response by a Stratfordian and Kositsky by Alden Vaughn, professor emeritus of history at editor of The Tempest. And a third Columbia University and co-editor Oxfordian jumped in with a letter with Virginia Mason Vaughn of the offering his own view (below). third edition Arden of The Tempest. In 2007, The Review of Vaughn argued that Strachey English Studies, which is pub- wrote his 24,000-word letter to an lished by Oxford University unnamed noble woman in London; Press, printed a long article with after having been shipwrecked at appendices co-authored by the Bermuda he arrived in the failing editor of Shakespeare Matters, Jamestown outpost in 1610 and com- who is a professor at Coppin State pleted the manuscript before a ship University, and Lynne Kositsky, sailed to London reportedly with the a published novelist of Toronto. letter–a period of about two months. Their article may be the The letter, he contends, arrived in first major, scholarly “Oxfordian” time for William of Stratford to have article in a “mainstream” liter- seen it in manuscript, which was not ary journal. RES is one of the printed until 1625. Vaughn also finds top three or four most respected “abundant verbal parallels” between journals in Renaissance or Early the Strachey letter and The Tempest. Modern Studies. Upon publication, Vaughn sent In their article, entitled a copy of SQ to a friend with a note “Shakespeare and the Voyagers saying, “Your friend Whalen won’t Revisited,”Stritmatter and Kos- like this.” Unable to resist the chal- itsky argued the following: lenge, Whalen crafted the following “A two-century critical reply and sent copies to the editors tradition that the 1609 Bermuda of the two journals: shipwreck literature (Jourdain 1610, “True Declaration” 1610, Strachey 1625) establishes a 31 January 2009 terminus a quo for The Tempest Alden Vaughn is incorrect. Strachey’s “True Worcester MA Repertory,” the only Bermuda Alden Vaughan’s fall 2008 SQ cover article pamphlet now thought to have sig- heroically but unsuccessfully tries to restore Wil- Dear Dr. Vaughan: nificantly influencedThe Tempest, liam Strachey’s “True Reportory” (f.p. 1625) to its was put into its only extant form traditional role as Shakespeare’s Tempest source. You’ve done some extraordinary too late to be used as the play’s research and interpretation, especially source and probably after the play on Hakluyt and Purchas, and I hope had already been produced in 1611. Strachey, a notorious pla- you will not take it amiss if I offer an alternative and more plausible giarist even by early modern standards, borrowed much that interpretation of the evidence for Strachey’s letter as a suggested his narrative shares with The Tempest from earlier sources source for The Tempest. also accessible to Shakespeare.” (Continued on page 4) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009 (News, cont. from p. 3) I subscribe the Shakespeare Quarterly, read your article and Finally, it is not plausible that the great dramatist had to heard from Ed Nanas and Don Nelson, our mutual friends. You depend almost slavishly on a letter such as Strachey’s in order presented quite a challenge. If you haven’t heard from Roger and to write The Tempest. Neither for an outline, as you suggest, nor Lynne on their RES article, or from Arthur Kinney, by now, I’m for all the descriptive words and phrases listed by Dave Kathman. sure you will. Meanwhile, I will not comment on their work but will For a detailed rebuttal of Kathman’s alleged parallels see Oxford- try to stand back and comment briefly on several crucial aspects. Shakespeare. com/documents and go to the very last item under In short, I suggest that the thrust of the article is contra- “StratMyths.” The alleged similarities between Strachey and The dicted by the concluding paragraphs, that the final judgment Tempest are almost all demonstrably false and/or very indistinct. that “Malone and Luce were right” is an unwarranted leap to Even the ardent Stratfordian scholar Greenblatt concludes that certainty resting solely on what might be plausible and that an “with the possible exception of some phrases from Strachey’s alternative scenario is even more plausible given the historical description of the storm and a few scattered details, The Tempest facts. In this alternative scenario, Strachey wrote the letter after does not directly use any of this vivid narrative” (1997). It is not he returned to England and William of Stratford was in no posi- the similarities but the many differences between Strachey and tion to have seen it. The Tempest that are most striking. First, there is no historical evidence that Strachey wrote the Shakespeare didn’t need Strachey. His great plays demon- letter before July 15, 1610 (or on that day). No evidence that he strate incredibly wide-ranging and in-depth reading. He could draw signed it or dated it. Since that date does not appear until 1625 in Purchas, it has no contemporary evidentiary value. Purchas (Hakluyt) did not say that date was the date of composition; the There is no historical evidence that wording is ambiguous. The dates of composition are unknown. Nor is there any evidence that Gates carried an unsigned letter Strachey wrote the letter before July 15, that the Company would not like and delivered it to an unnamed noblewoman. It’s possible (anything is possible) but not plausible. 1610 (or on that day). No evidence that Second, it is not plausible that Strachey would have written he signed it or dated it. Since that date the letter in Virginia. He had arrived less than two months earlier at remote outpost in ruinous disarray. A shipwreck survivor on a does not appear until 1625 in Purchas; makeshift sailboat, he had no provisions. Nearly three-quarters of the men at Jamestown had recently died of malnutrition and it has no contemporary evidentiary value. illness, and the remaining sixty were leaderless, under attack by Purchas (Hakluyt) did not say that date Indians, without provisions, sick and hungry, months away from any harvest and ready to abandon the outpost and go home. It is was the date of composition; the wording not likely that in these dire circumstances Strachey or anyone would find paper, pen, ink, a table and the time, energy and in- is ambiguous. The dates of composition centive to write a 24,000-word letter to an unnamed noble lady, are unknown. Nor is there any evidence addressing her as such throughout. Possible but not plausible. Third, it is not plausible that William of Stratford had any that Gates carried an unsigned letter that opportunity to see Strachey’s manuscript letter. There is no evi- dence that anyone read it, except Hakluyt. (Again, it is remotely the Company would not like and delivered possible that William of Stratford saw it. Anything is possible, but it to an unnamed noblewoman. It’s pos- it is not plausible.) There is no historical evidence that he had any relationship with nobility or the Company. Moreover, as Jonathan sible (anything is possible) but not Bate notes in his latest book (2008), “Most biographers prefer to ignore the fact that we cannot formally prove that Shakespeare plausible. was in London between autumn 1604 and early summer 1612” (358). If he wasn’t in London, he couldn’t have seen the manu- script letter until 1612, if he saw it at all. on his recall of many reports of storms, shipwrecks and castaways, Fourth, it is equally plausible, even more so, that Strachey, if indeed he needed them at all to write The Tempest. These poten- ever ambitious, saw on his return to England in 1611 that he tial sources (researched by Roger and Lynne, and others) include could gain fame, the patronage of a noble lady and perhaps a bit the Bible (St. Paul’s shipwreck at Malta), Virgil’s Aeneid, accounts of fortune by writing up his adventures in Bermuda and James- by Erasmus (1523), Ariosto (1532), and especially Martyr-Eden town–adventures that would entertain the noble lady and her (1516-1555) and Beste (1578 on Frobisher); also by Raleigh (1591 friends even though his account would displease the Company at Bermuda), de Ulloa and Tomson (in Hakluyt). These accounts (your “hard to fathom” on page 258). In London, he could bor- are much closer to The Tempest narrative and language than is row freely from books. It is implausible that such books were also Strachey, especially, for example, Erasmus, Ariosto, Martyr-Eden, available in destitute Jamestown. (Continued on p. 19) Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 5

Who Was Spenser’s E.K.? Another Look at the Evidence

By Mike Hyde

dutifull verses of your selfe.”6 he case for Edward De Vere as the E.K. of Spenser’s Shep- Spenser’s letter is written from Westminster; he has been heardes Calendar of 1579 is made in great detail in seven at court in attendance on the Queen. It is clear both from this issues of the Edward De Vere Newsletter,1 compiled and T letter and from the Shepheardes Calendar that E.K. is himself edited by Nina Green. The case can be strengthened with ad- a courtly poet, who has written “paynefull and dutifull” verses ditional facts from the lives and writings of de Vere, Spenser and about Harvey. E.K. also presents himself as a Chaucerian in his Gabriel Harvey. Fol- epistle which begins lowing a review and with a Chaucerian summary of this phrase “Uncouth evidence, we will unkiste,” as a stu- present our view of dent of languages the best explanation (medieval English, for the initials E. K. Latin, French, Ital- and their use by de ian) and above all Vere. as a defender of E.K. ends his archaism in English introductory epistle poetry—attributes to Gabriel Harvey which tally with de and to Spenser’s Vere’s education and Shepherdes Calen- accomplishments as dar “from my lodg- a scholar/poet/patron ing at London this in 1579. 10th of April 1579.”2 E.K. and Harvey In April 1579 Ed- are personally linked mund Spenser was to Sir Thomas Smith still in Kent, living in the glosses to the at the residence of Colin Cout (Spenser’s self-representation) from the January Eclogue of January and Septem- John Young, Bishop Shephearde’s Calendar. ber eclogues, first in of Rochester; Ga- acknowledging the briel Harvey was in residence at Cambridge although involved loan of Smith’s book on government from Smith’s “kinseman” with Leicester’s faction at court, supporting the assertion3 that Harvey, which book E.K. says is now in his possession along with E.K. was not Harvey nor Spenser himself. Harvey and Spenser other of Sir Thomas’ “grave excellent wrytings”:7 stayed with Leicester when in London, while de Vere had “lodgings” near Bishopsgate.4 As we discuss below, de Vere had returned As well interpreteth the worthy Sir Tho. Smitth in his to London in September 1578 after following the Queen on her booke of gouerment: wherof I haue a perfect copie in summer Progress, and was at court in London throughout 1579. wryting, lent me by his kinseman, and my verye singular Furthermore E.K. is clearly referred to as a third person good freend, M. Gabriel Haruey: as also of some other his in a letter from Spenser to Harvey dated October 15/16, 1579, most graue & excellent wrytings.8 when Spenser was in London at Leicester’s house and Harvey still in Cambridge:5 “Maister E.K. hartily desireth to be commended It would appear that E. K. was looking at the unpublished unto your Worshippe(e.g., Harvey): of whome what accompte he manuscripts of Sir Thomas at the same time he was working on maketh, your selfe shall hereafter perceive, by hys paynefull and (Continued on p. 23) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Conference, cont. from p. 1) Contrary to Stratfordian claims, events the center of all of Shakespeare’s plays. such as the eclipses of the sun and moon Shakespeare’s extensive preoccupation this astonishing (and controversial) new mentioned in King Lear took place in 1598 perspective holds tremendous promise with issues of legitimacy, bastardy, and as well as 1605, the civil unrest and food succession might well be considered for ground-breaking television. Plummer, riots described in Coriolanus occurred in who has directed over a dozen Shakespeare accordingly, as telling reflections of the 1596 as well as 1607, and scholarship by anxiety and hope that may have attended productions as well as plays by Moliere, Roger Stritmatter and Lynne Kositsky has Chekhov, Sam Shepard, Carlo Gozzi, and his personal interest in the subject. established once and for all that no evidence Dr. Wright said that royal bastards his own original pieces, said that their exists that The Tempest must be dated after new television series option of Shake- were numerous in Shakespeare’s time 1604. Anderson also pointed out that the and were central to the issue of legitimacy speare By Another Name is “the sort of doctrine of equivocation talked about in thing Shakespeare — de Vere — would and that “the disposition of royal bastards Macbeth was written about by William in English history is instructive for us in be proud of.” Cecil as early as 1584. “We are using a mass medium to considering the challenges that may have Daniel Wright, Ph.D., Professor of confronted Elizabeth I and the government tell an incredibly elevated but at the same English at Concordia University and Direc- time tremendously entertaining story,” of England if the Queen, like so many Eng- declared Plummer. “ And at the same time, lish monarchs before her, were the parent we’re taking on one of the world’s biggest of at least one unacknowledged royal heir.” The Shakesperean plays ask not “Who will sacred cows.” He also asserted that “the “We are using a mass me- authorship issue is of vital importance to rule?” but “Who is supposed to rule?” They all theatre artists…knowing the historical dium to tell an incredibly argue that bastardy is a virtuous condition, an icon of the royal ideal and should be no context of de Vere’s life and times helps elevated but at the same time both Shakespeare directors and actors barrier to the crown. The bastard of King tremendously.” tremendously entertaining John, for example is a loyal subject, not a usurper, and the suggestion is clear that There were many highlights as the story,” declared Plummer. “ Conference welcomed back Shakespeare Queen Elizabeth’s successor should be Fellowship regulars Dan Wright, Mark And at the same time, we’re named and should be a natural heir. Semi-retired English professor Dr. Anderson, Paul Altrocchi, Robert Brazil, taking on one of the world’s Thomas Regnier, Bill Boyle, Bonner Cut- Helen Gordon spoke on the subject “Com- ting, and Earl Showerman. Other speakers biggest sacred cows.” He also paring the Sonnets to the Life Events of Oxford vs. Shakspere.” Gordon began included Robin Fox, Dr. Frank Davis, Paul asserted that “the authorship Streitz, Michael Egan, Albert Burgstahler, her paper by stating that, in her view, Betsy Clark, Helen Gordon, Cheryl Eagan- issue is of vital importance Henry Wriothesley was the “fair youth,” Ann Vavasor was the “dark lady,” and the Donovan, Stephanie Hopkins-Hughes, to all theatre artists…know- John Hudson, Ron Song Destro, and “rival poets” were Sir Walter Raleigh, Derran Charlton. Talks focused on the ing the historical context of Sir Philip Sidney, and Edmund Spenser. Oxfordians,” she said, “see Shake-speare’s literary, historical, political, and religious de Vere’s life and times helps significance of the works of Shakespeare Sonnets as revealing the author’s personal and the mystery of the authorship question. both Shakespeare directors life,” citing several examples while admit- ting that they are open to many different Alex McNeil, President of the Shakespeare and actors tremendously.” Fellowship, noted the strong turnout at interpretations. the Conference saying, “I was very pleased Sonnet 121 describes the slander of to see a good turnout this year, especially Howard and Arundel against Oxford; in with the slumping economy.” tor of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Sonnet 133, Oxford, resentful of imprison- The Conference keynote address Conference in Portland, Oregon, led off ment, agrees to mend his ways and vouches was given by journalist and author Mark the Conference with his paper “All My for the purity of his wife. Sonnets 67 and Anderson. In his talk “1604: The Oxford- Children: Royal Bastards and Royal Policy.” 68 refer to the son of Anne Vavasor, asking ian Ace in the Hole,” Anderson declared Shakespeare, according to Dr. Wright, whether he was being raised in a proper en- that Oxfordians should stop being on the was an “eminently political author,” an vironment, and Sonnet 25 reflects Oxford’s defensive about the fact that Oxford died informed commentator on the current experience of being dropped from jousting in 1604 and go on the offensive. Accord- political scene who mixed historical data tournaments and has the ring of personal ing to Anderson, this was the year that with pure fiction to make a moral point. He pain. Sonnet 110 reflects the thoughts of Shakespeare turned silent. It should be was not a historian dedicated to reportage, a penitent husband asking for forgiveness emphasized, he asserted, that no plays but a poet who engaged in “nobly edifying and swearing not to stray again. According were written or edited after 1604 and there the reader.” Dr. Wright suggested that the to Gordon, this couplet: are no sources for the plays after 1604. issue of succession is a pattern that is at Then give me welcome, next my heaven the best, Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 7

Even to thy pure and most, most loving breast that the two founders knew each other, politically incorrect play that, according to careful planning went into their survival. Hopkins-Hughes, resulted in Marlowe’s as- fits perfectly the reconciliation of Oxford Burbage’s theater was an outdoor venue sassination in 1593 after its four-year run. to his Countess Anne Cecil in 1581 after he designed for general public attendance Bonner Miller Cutting, an indepen- had sired a child out of wedlock earlier that in warmer seasons, whereas Blackfriars dent researcher from Houston, continued year, and after he had been estranged from was designed for more educated class in the conference with a paper titled “Where her due to rumors about her first child. the winter. There’s A Will,” in which she took a close Although Stratfordians think this poem One of the prominent patrons was look at the “Last Will and Testament” might have expressed Shakspere’s guilt the Earl of Sussex who pushed for an of William Shakspere of Stratford-on- feelings about Avon, discov- being away from ered officially his wife Anne in 1747 by the Hathaway, this Reverend Jo- does not explain seph Greene. the word “pure” After examin- in the last line. ing the his- One of the torical infor- most thought mation con- provoking talks cerning this was given by “cherished” Stephanie Hop- d o c u m e n t , kins-Hughes, she delivered who served as an appraisal editor-in-chief of the will us- of The Oxford- ing other wills ian for ten of the era for years. Her talk comparison. focused on the She concluded birth of the that while the London stage will follows and the creation the standard of the modern format of the media, provid- time, there ing a context is nothing in for the Elizabe- its three hal- than and Shake- lowed pages spearean revo- Mark Anderson with Producer John Plummer, freelance producer and director (this year at that reveals lution of the the Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival) are planning a television series on de Vere. the slightest late 1500s. The glimmer of a year 1576, according to Hopkins-Hughes, alliance between the Queen and the cultivated mind. with the opening of the first commercial French and looked to acting companies There is no mention of books, fur- year-round theaters in England, was the to provide entertainment for the masses. niture that would hold books, papers, moment that humans took the first step Two other patrons, Charles Howard and manuscripts, musical instruments, art in the development of modern functional Henry Hunsdon, also supported the the- works, tapestries, maps, shares of a theatri- democracy. aters and it is noted that all three patrons cal company, or theatrical memorabilia. In Hopkins-Hughes pointed out that were related to Edward de Vere. Though short there is nothing in his personal effects before the establishment of Blackfriars and we know nothing about the early plays, indicative of intellectual property as there Burbage’s theaters in 1576, commercial Edward de Vere had just returned from often was in the wills of every day people theater was never an industry and acting Italy and had moved close to Burbage’s, in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. This was not a profession. One of the catalysts providing the opportunity for him to write conclusion is further amplified by the fact for the development of the theaters was plays for the new theater. Hopkins-Hughes that Shakspere failed to provide for the the Protestant Revolution and the end points out that a rival theater, The Rose, education of any members of his family of Catholic holiday celebrations under established by Philip Henslowe in 1587, led and made no provisions for the Stratford Edward VI. The two theaters withstood to the defection of Marlowe and Edward Grammar School (where he presumably twenty years of attacks by enemies of the Alleyn and Marlowe’s hit Tamburlaine, a status quo and, though there is no evidence (Continued on p. 8) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Conference, cont. from p. 7) many interesting facts and puzzles which should be of great interest to Oxfordians. obtained his education) or any other educational institution, The diary first came to critical attention in 1780 when church, hospital or almshouse. Edmund Malone requested Henslowe’s papers from the Dulwich Noting that posterity has held that the bequest of his sec- library. The next scholar to examine the manuscripts was John ond best bed to his wife is “notorious,” Cutting showed that it is Payne Collier, who allegedly inserted forgeries which supported even worse when examined in context. Shakspere failed to make his own theories about Shakespeare. There have been other provisions for Mrs. Shakspere’s maintenance, did not appoint her studies of the diary, including G.F. Warner in 1881 and Foakes his executrix or his residual legatee, nor did he even address her in 2002. All in all, Henslowe recorded payments to twenty-seven by name, all standard features found in other wills. If it be true Elizabethan playwrights, though no payments to writers were that it is “the mind, not the words, that giveth life to the testa- recorded until 1597. Though some of the plays listed are Hamlet, Henry VI, Titus Andronicus, Troilus and Cressida, Henry V, and Taming of a Shrew, there is no mention of William Shakespeare One of the complicating factors is that in Henslowe’s diary. records were not kept of burials in West- Curiously, an earlier play Titus and Vespacian is listed as having run for one year whereas Titus Andronicus, which closely minster Abbey until 1607, yet we do resembles the earlier play in title, was performed in December know that Francis Vere had a vault there, 1593 and registered in 1594. Key points listed by Davis included: the important role of actor/writers in revising old plays, the many and was buried adjacent to six coffins. If plays that were written by more than one author, and the number of shareholders in the company who were also actors. Davis also we can believe Percival Golding’s state- mentioned the famous publication of Greene’s Groatsworth in ment that Edward de Vere is buried in 1592 that criticized an actor who was trying to write. According to Davis, however, more work is needed to investigate the exact Westminster, Horatio Vere might have relationship that existed at the time between shareholders, ac- buried Edward and his wife in Francis’ tors, and writers. The intriguing question, “Does Westminster Abbey Hide vault together with a coffin designated Cloistered Authorship Secrets?” was discussed by author Paul to hold the manuscripts. Recently, us- Altrocchi, a former Professor of Neurology at Stanford Medical School and author of Most Greatly Lived, a biographical novel ing ground penetrating radar, Warwick of Edward de Vere. Altrocchi discussed several possibilities: the manuscripts still exist; they were destroyed by the Cecil family; Rodwell, England’s most respected they were burned in Ben Jonson’s fire; they were accidentally Church Archeologist, identified the tomb destroyed in other fires; or they were purposefully destroyed. Prof. Altrocchi did not give credence to those possibilities, but of Edward the Confessor of 1066, open- explored the notion that the manuscripts may have been buried ing up the possibility that Francis’ vault in Westminster Abbey. One of the complicating factors is that records were not may eventually be explored as well. Such kept of burials in Westminster Abbey until 1607, yet we do know that Francis Vere had a vault there, and was buried adjacent to investigation, however, is not permitted six coffins. If we can believe Percival Golding’s statement that at present. Edward de Vere is buried in Westminster, Horatio Vere might have buried Edward and his wife in Francis’ vault together with a coffin designated to hold the manuscripts. Recently, using ground penetrating radar, Warwick Rodwell, England’s most respected ment,” then it is painfully obvious that the mind that gave life Church Archeologist, identified the tomb of Edward the Confes- to the Shakespeare canon is a mind not found in this document. sor of 1066, opening up the possibility that Francis’ vault may Dr. Frank Davis, retired neurosurgeon from Tallahassee, eventually be explored as well. Such investigation, however, is Florida, spoke on the subject “The Diary of Philip Henslowe and not permitted at present. its Significance to Oxfordians.” The Henslowe diary lists 282 Paul Streitz, author of the self-published book, Oxford: Son plays performed during the period 1592-1609. It is a collection of Queen Elizabeth I, spoke on the topic “Oxford and the King of memoranda and notes that records payments to writers, box James Bible.” Streitz proposed that the Earl of Oxford was born office takings, and lists of money lent, and is a primary source for in 1548 and died in 1608, and asked some hypothetical (and information about the theatrical world of Renaissance London. It controversial) questions: is also, according to Davis, an important document that reveals Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 9

1. Why is there no record of de Vere’s birth? the University of Michigan Medical School, and practitioner of 2. Why was there such concern for the child Oxford that he emergency medicine for over thirty years, continued the with a was schooled at the age of 4 ½? stimulating talk about the influence of Greek tragedy in Timon 3. Why did John de Vere marry Margery Golding? of Athens, which he called “Shakespeare’s Sophoclean Tragedy.” 4. Why did Robert Cecil marry his daughter to de Vere? Although a play by the title is mentioned as early as 1584, by both 5. Why was Southampton thrown into the tower in 1604? William Warner and Robert Greene, Timon was not published 6. Why was there no funeral elegy in 1604? or performed in Shakespeare’s lifetime. It is unlikely that this “Ur Timon” was the academic drama sometimes called the “Old” Streitz asserted that Oxford did not die in 1604, but was Timon comedy, most likely performed at one of the Inns of Court instead abducted by Robert Cecil and held on the Island of around 1600, because it includes allusions to other Shakespeare Mersea off the English coast. There, Streitz claimed, Oxford plays from the 1590s. wrote The Tempest, Shake-speare’s Sonnets, and translated Timon is based on three primary sources: Plutarch’s Lives, the King James Bible. According to Streitz, the translators of the King James Bible have never been established with any certainty and attribution of authorship mirrors many of the Professor Daniel Wright, Professor of problems faced by scholars involved with the questions relating to Shakespeare. Notwithstanding copious scholarship on the English at Concordia University and translation process, including surviving copies of Bibles used Director of the Shakespeare Authorship by the translators, Streitz contends that only the Earl of Oxford had the literary skill necessary to create the King James Bible. Studies Conference in Portland, Oregon Kennedy Center award-winning playwright, director, ac- tor and professor and founding artistic director of the Oxford was named “Oxfordian of the Year..” Shake-speare Company in New York City, Ron Song Destro, Accepting the award, Wright announced offered some “Tips on Presenting the Oxfordian Lecture.” Using his own PowerPoint presentation of the Oxfordian argument, that the 74,000 sq. ft. library facility Destro showed how a potentially dry lecture could be turned at Concordia that will contain The into a lively depiction of the most prominent Oxfordian tenets: the monument bust that does not look like that of a writer, Shak- Shakespeare Authorship Research spere’s record of tax delinquency, his mundane grave inscription, the fact that his daughters were illiterate, hints in the sonnets Centre is under construction. The Centre about the true author, and the fact that Shakespeare was called will house the resources for scholarly “”Our English Terence,” a reference to a Roman playwright who was widely believed to be a front man for other writers. investigation and meetings, annual As a bonus, the Conference offered a DVD of a BBC produc- seminars for in-depth study, and provide tion from 1982 of the dark Shakespearean play Timon of Athens, an early Twilight Zone episode about a ne’er do well author stable funding for program leadership who conjures up Mr. Shakespeare to assist him in his writing, and scholarly research. In addition, a DVD dramatizing Mark Twain’s book “Is Shakespeare Dead”?, and Dream, John Hudson’s adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Wright announced that the Research Dream. Professor Daniel Wright, Professor of English at Concordia Centre will allow scholars from all over University and Director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies the world to access the same databases Conference in Portland, Oregon was named “Oxfordian of the Year.” Accepting the award, Wright announced that the 74,000 sq. that are available to Concordia faculty and ft. library facility at Concordia that will contain The Shakespeare students. Authorship Research Centre is under construction. The Centre will house the resources for scholarly investigation and meetings, annual seminars for in-depth study, and provide stable funding for Lucian’s satiric dialogue Timon the Misanthrope, and Sophocles’ program leadership and scholarly research. In addition, Wright as yet untranslated Oedipus at Colonus. Timon is notable for a announced that the Research Centre will allow scholars from all number of common elements of Greek tragedy such as choric over the world to access the same databases that are available to commentaries, its trilogy structure, the use of messengers, Greek Concordia faculty and students. He also said that the Declaration poetic tropes, and the lack of either action or staged violence. The of Reasonable Doubt will hang outside the Research Centre as central theme of madness and main character who is an ill-fated, signed by leading academic figures at Concordia. a humiliated hero whose failure to understand himself casts him Dr. Earl Showerman, a graduate of Harvard College and outside of society seems very much to have been inspired by (Continued on p. 10) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Conference, cont. from p. 9) Robin Fox , Professor of Social Theory at Rutgers and author Oedipus at Colonus. and editor of fifteen books, spoke about “Shakespeare’s Education? The history of classical drama on the English stage may hold The Grammar School Question Reconsidered.” Prof. Fox asked a key to understanding Timon’s unique place in the canon in that the question: Did Shakespeare have an education? If so, what was this tragedy appears to be Shakespeare’s one attempt at writing a it like? And what relevance did it have to the plays? According to Renaissance adaptation of Greek tragedy. Finally, an examination Fox, both Oxfordians and some Stratfordians have denigrated or of Edward de Vere’s personal misfortunes in the early 1580’s may downplayed the role of the grammar school (Oxfordian criticism suggest a much earlier dating for this intensely personal drama is “downright disbelief”), while other Stratfordians have credited of overspending, heavy debts, banishment, misanthropy, and the the grammar school with all of the learning shown in the plays. threat of revenge. The dispute has been conducted in a historical vacuum Lawyer and teacher Thomas Regnier, who has taught a course on Shakespeare and Law at the University of Miami School of Law, spoke about “Henry V and the Salic Law.” In the second scene of Shakespeare’s play, the Archbishop of Canterbury argues for the validity of Henry’s claim to the French throne by Hesse asserted that there exists “pal- expounding on the “Salic law.” The Archbishop claims that the pable evidence” that Oxford, and almost French were using the ancient Salic law (the law of the Salian Franks) to bar Henry’s claim, which derived from his great- exclusively Oxford among young stu- great-grandmother Isabella, a French princess who had married Edward II of England. The Archbishop assumes that the Salic law dents of his time, would have been able prohibits succession to the throne through a female ancestor. to read and even write in Old English Regnier proposed that the Salic law argument was merely a “straw man” and that, in truth, Henry V’s claim to the French throne was (O.E. or Anglo-Saxon), an extinct lan- barred by a perfectly legal decree of the French Estates-General, guage not before identified as relevant which provided that no one could ascend to the throne through a female ancestor. This decree did not depend on the ancient Salic to the authorship question. Oxford may law, which had emanated from a tribe that had long ceased to ex- have also participated personally in the ist as an identifiable entity. The Archbishop’s arguments that the Salic land was in Germany, not France, and that previous French most important literary/legal project kings had ascended through their female ancestors were shown to be inaccurate, as well as irrelevant to the controlling French of Elizabethan times, the buttressing of decree, which was what actually barred Henry’s claim. a legal basis for supporting the Queen’s Cheryl Eagan-Donovan, a director and independent film producer whose production company, Controversy Films, is cur- religious settlement. A byproduct of that rently working on a documentary, Nothing Is Truer Than Truth, project happened to be the discovery of based on the life of Edward de Vere and Mark Anderson’s book Shakespeare By Another Name, talked about the personal jour- the medieval text of the ancient Beowulf ney that led to her the conviction that Oxford was Shakespeare. Her journey began when she read “Shakespeare” Identified by J. epic, the oldest extant O.E. manuscript in Thomas Looney. She explained how Looney created a profile of the existence, which was discovered by Ox- author from the plays and poetry of Shakespeare, listing specific characteristics that would be required of a candidate for the title. ford’s tutor in 1563 but then disappeared Looney also found the sonnets to be of special significance, again for centuries after about 1570. in that “possibly more than any other form of composition, [the sonnet] has been the vehicle for the expression of the most inti- mate thoughts and feelings of poets.” Looney mentioned that “by that failed to see how the grammar schools were part of an in- far the larger and more important set [of Shakespeare’s sonnets] tensive (and very successful) state effort to create a new, literate, embracing no less than one hundred and twenty-six out of total Protestant, humanist Englishman. Fox examined schools and of one hundred and fifty-four, is addressed to a young man, and schoolmasters in the plays, pointing out Henry VIII and 2 Henry express a tenderness which is probably without parallel in the VI 4.7, in which the virtues of the grammar school are extolled, recorded expressions of emotional attachment of one man of and asserted that a well-educated nobleman could definitely have another.” Using Looney and Sobran as guides, Eagan-Donovan received his education in the grammar school. looked at different film interpretations of the works of Shakespeare W. Ron Hess, the author of a book series The Dark Side over the last century and showed clips from her documentary of Shakespeare, discussed “The Spear-shaker and the Dragon project Nothing Is Truer Than Truth. — Oxford, Beowulf, and Hamlet.” Hess declared that when Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 11

Stratfordians pretend to show little interest in a matter related lion of 1601, which was immediately preceded by a performance to Shakespeare, Oxfordians can be sure it is something that we of Shakespeare’s Richard II. need to investigate more closely. Leaving aside any theories of putative royal bastards, there He asserted that there exists “palpable evidence” that remain some significant historical facts (and some significant pub- Oxford, and almost exclusively Oxford among young students lications other than Shakespeare’s) during this period that merit of his time, would have been able to read and even write in Old close scrutiny by those involved in the Shakespeare authorship English (O.E. or Anglo-Saxon), an extinct language not before debate. Not the least of these facts is the interconnection among identified as relevant to the authorship question. Oxford may the 3rd Earl of Southampton, the Earl of Essex, Shakespeare, and have also participated personally in the most important literary/ the succession question. One of the most important documents legal project of Elizabethan times, the buttressing of a legal basis dealing with the succession, according to Mr. Boyle, may be the for supporting the Queen’s religious settlement. A byproduct of fictionalWillobie His Avisa, published in 1594. that project happened to be the discovery of the medieval text of The work, according to Boyle, is about Avisa’s chastity, which the ancient Beowulf epic, the oldest extant O.E. manuscript in existence, which was discovered by Oxford’s tutor in 1563 but then disappeared again for centuries after about 1570. Hess asserted that Oxford learned to read and write Old Eng- Robert Brazil, an editor and print de- lish from his tutor Lawrence Nowell, the foremost O.E. expert of signer, has been studying the authorship that time. According to Hess, we may even be able to show that Beowulf did influence Shakespeare’s Hamlet, something Strat- question for the last 30 years and has fordians essentially deny or ignore. Although the main sources of been conducting research into the Oxford Hamlet are Saxo’s Amleth and Belleforest’s Hamblet, they both lack the supernatural element and the intrusion of conscience theory for over 20 years. His topic was and guilt present in both Beowulf and Hamlet. Thus, Oxford could “Analyzing Further Writings by Oxford.” have read it in Cecil’s house, but a denizen of Warwickshire could not have. Moreover, it is possible that we have discovered a sample Mr. Brazil discussed and read from sever- of Oxford’s handwriting in short margin comments using O.E. “Why Was Shakespeare So Interested in the Roman-Jewish al poems, introductions, and epistles at- War?” This question was explored by John Hudson, currently tached to books with a de Vere connection Artistic Director and Dramaturge to The Dark Lady Players, a New York Shakespeare company. The first century Roman-Jewish (dating from 1580 to 1596) that were, war, 66-73CE, he declared, was of unusual interest in Elizabethan in his opinion, almost certainly penned London—books and pamphlets on it were frequently published, and went on to examine how two plays, A Midsummer Night’s by the 17th Earl himself. These writings Dream and As You Like It, made radical allusions to that war and to the gospel characters— by using the common Elizabethan are fascinating on their own, but also literary device of allegory. display a very strong stylistic match both He suggested that the reason Shakespeare plays are preoc- cupied with taking revenge upon the Romans who fought the to extant Oxford letters and verses and to Roman-Jewish war is that they are Jewish allegories and could passages in the Shakespeare plays... only have been written by England’s only Jewish poet of the time, the first woman in the country to publish a book of original po- etry and the long term mistress to Lord Hunsdon, the so-called is asailed by five suitors. Among those who have tried and were ‘Dark Lady’ of the Sonnets, Emilia Bassano Lanier (1569-1645). rejected is “Henrico Willobego,” or “H.W.” In his disappointment Reference was also made to the 2007-8 allegorical productions and unrequited love he turns to his friend, W.S., for advice. Boyle of both plays by the Dark Lady Players. pointed out that in Elizabethan times, wooing meant jockeying Librarian and long time Oxfordian lecturer William Boyle for succession to the throne, not a romantic quest. He said that spoke on “Shakespeare and the Succession Crisis of the 1590s: in interpreting the poem, the only thing that makes sense is that Some Thoughts and Observations.” Boyle observed that when Oxford is the author, H.W. is Henry Wriothesley, and Avisa is Queen the name Shakespeare first appeared in print in 1593 England Elizabeth, though the author B.N. DeLuna in her book, The Queen was entering the last ten years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, though Declined: An Interpretation of ‘Willobie His Avisa, suggests that at that time none could know that she would live another ten H.W is a combination of Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester and years. Since she steadfastly refused to settle the succession by the Earl of Essex. Boyle pointed out that if Avisa is the Queen, naming a successor, these years have been referred to by some W.S. cannot be the actor from Stratford. This conjecture is given as the “succession question,” though in truth some historians of the period have considered her entire reign to be one on-going succession crisis. This crisis came to a head with the Essex Rebel- (Continued on p. 12) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Conference, cont. from p. 11) famous poet and playwright referred to as “Shakspeare” was actu- some credence by the cryptic lines that end the work’s final poem ally Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Because of its nature, “ever or never, I am content.” this authentic contemporary cryptographic testimony is claimed Robert Sean Brazil, a professional editor and print designer, to fulfill all the requirements proposed by eminent cryptologists has been studying the authorship question for the last 30 years and William F. and Elizebeth S. Friedman for a genuine, unequivocal, has been conducting research into the Oxford theory for over 20 rigorously verifiable encrypted message that provides an irrefut- years. His topic was “Analyzing Further Writings by Oxford.” Mr. able, scientific resolution of the authorship debate. Brazil discussed and read from several poems, introductions, and Betsy Clark, an independent Canadian researcher who has epistles attached to books with a de Vere connection (dating from been studying the numerological structures of 16th and 17th 1580 to 1596) that were, in his opinion, almost certainly penned century English compositions for 14 years, presented a paper titled by the 17th Earl himself. These writings are fascinating on their “The Numerological Structure of Four Dedications and One Title.” own, but also display a very strong stylistic match both to extant Clark began with an explanation of her theory of the numerological Oxford letters and verses and to passages in the Shakespeare plays methodology employed by various English authors, explaining and poems. The curious nature of these inclusions has been noted some of the techniques of Hebrew gematria and crediting the by orthodox scholars and has left them puzzled. The themes and German linguist Johannes Reuchlin with the dissemination of contents of the works in which this material appears also point these techniques to the larger Christian world. Clark then exhibited the use of sacred numbers derived from the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages and transposed into English by an examination of three dedications found in Jonson’s In his Microcosmos (1603) Davies Volpone, and Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis and The Rape of wrote: “And though the stage doth staine Lucrece. One John Benson title was also examined. The final presentation claimed to constitute the numerological unraveling pure gentle bloud.” Charlton concen- of the dedication of Shake-speare’s Sonnets, revealing that the 17th Earl of Oxford was the true author of the sonnets. trated on Davies prompting reference Matthew Cossolotto, President of the Shakespeare Oxford “Had’st thou not plaid some Kingly parts Society, discussed “A Posthumous Publication? Sleuthing Through Shakespeare’s Sonnets for Authorship Clues.” Cos- in sport,” and presented an anonymous solotto asked the crucial question: Were the Sonnets published posthumously? The presentation focused on what we know for Elizabethan portrait – probably repre- sure about the Sonnets and what this evidence might tell us senting Edward de Vere – in a most pro- about the poet’s identity. One goal of the talk was to develop a plan for making 2009 “The Year of the Sonnets,” using the 400th vocative kingly role, the role of Henry IV, anniversary of the Sonnets publication as a way to focus attention on the authorship issue. the first Lancastrian king, a role, accord- Michael Egan, scholar, writer, critic, and new editor of The ing to Mr. Charlton, possibly performed Oxfordian, spoke about “Updating the fate of Richard II Part One” and also discussed his editorial policy for the newsletter, opening by Oxford in 1583. the subject to a lively discussion. Egan thanked the group for the confidence they have shown in his integrity and commitment to truth and called for the newsletter to reflect a broadbased to important Oxford-Shakespeare linkages. authorship study. Some, however, offered the opinion that the While other researchers have attempted to broaden the newsletter should only represent the point of view that Oxford Oxford-Shakespeare canon through wholesale appropriation of was Shakespeare. the works of other famous Elizabethan authors, Brazil took a Independent researcher Derran Charlton spoke about John more cautious approach, focusing on material that was either Davies (c.1565-1618), poet and writing-master of Hereford, who, anonymous or published under single-use pseudonyms. Accord- in his Scourge of Folly (1610) Epigram 159, addressed “To our ing to Brazil, as more vetted material is carefully added to the English Terence, Mr. Will. Shakespeare,” wrote: “Had`st thou not accepted canon of writings of the 17th Earl of Oxford, the overall plaid some Kingly parts in sport. Thou had`st bin a companion stylometric match to Shakespeare will be vastly improved. for a King;” A ‘writing-master’ was one who taught penmanship Retired professor of chemistry at the University of Kansas, and Davies` pupils included Prince Henry during the time that Albert Burgstahler, spoke on the challenge of the Stratford Monu- the Prince attended Magdalen College, plus members of very ment, presenting an account of British mathematician David L. distinguished families, including the Pembroke, Derby, Herbert, Roper’s discovery and decryption of the 34-column equidistant Percy, and Egerton families. letter sequencing (ELS) Cardano grille, which he believes is In his Microcosmos (1603) Davies wrote: “And though the unmistakably embedded in the open cipher text of the Stratford monument inscription. The underlying message avows that the (Continued on p. 28) Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 13

(Benedick and Beatrice, cont. from p. 1) opportunity for conference presentation reply was a chilly brushoff. It started in- and Executive Secretary of the Interna- in the humanities is typically not a ter- nocently enough; to our July 12 email, tional Institute for the Advanced Study ribly competitive or stressful process; which included a hyperlink to an online of Bardology, whose offices are located many papers which might never receive version of the 12,000-word version of our in Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire, the sanction of publication are routinely article (on the Shakespeare Fellowship Merry England, to request that work accepted for conference presentation, at site), we received an automated reply: “I undertaken, on the sources and date of conferences all over the globe, on the will be away from the SRU office…Semi- The Tempest, be added to the SRU 2006 ground that the exercise affords scholars nar registration forms arriving from July program. The 2006 Conference was slated an opportunity to exchange, debate, and 9-17th will be acknowledged on Monday to be held in an exotic location “down refine ideas in a less formal and rigorous 18th July.” under,” where the abundant sunshine context – to improve them, if necessary or On July 25, having waited without and many sandy beaches provide just the possible, for publication. The heavy aca- reply for exactly a week after the promised right ambience for reclining academicians demic politics, in other words, are usually “acknowledgement,” we decided to take on conference holiday. Naturally Beatrice left for the publishing gauntlet and the matters into our own hands. Beatrice and I could think of nothing but joining wrote to the coordinator’s boss, Dr. Top- the fun in the sun. Hat, explaining the entire history of our Elements of our study had previ- The response was immedi- communication. Top-Hat himself did not ously been presented within the Oxfordian ate, cordial, and even – the reply, but on July 29 Beatrice received the community, but we innocently supposed first of many curious communiqués from that orthodox Shakespeareans might also only applicable adjective Dr. J. Gee Joy, a Professor at a major North take an interest in our work, the results – enthusiastic: “Thank American research institution: of which had significant implications for an industry that is historically committed you very much for your Dear Beatrice (if I may): to what we have reason to conclude was a message. It would be won- demonstrably erroneous view of Tempest ……I’m sorry about the missed con- sources and chronology. “We have a derful to include your nections, and I’m not quite sure what’s current article of some fifteen thousand presentation in our pro- been happening. Because the organiz- words almost ready to send out for review,” gramme,” replied Dr. Sam- ers of the Congress are so far-flung I wrote, “which will, we suspect, transform – I’m chair of the RSU executive, Dr. understanding of the subject by showing uel Heathcliff on June 17. Top-Hat is down under, and Heathcliff that Shakespeare did not depend, and in The coordinator requested is in England – I’ve decided to visit fact could not have depended, upon William Stratford next month for two weeks in Strachey’s ‘True Reportory’…Shakespeare that we send him a copy of order to straighten out problems like relied on two much earlier sources, usually the complete paper by July these. Meantime, I’ve already written overlooked.” 15; on June 17 we replied, to Heathcliff himself to find out why he The response was immediate, cordial, hasn’t responded to any of your mes- and even – the only applicable adjective indicating that we would sages or forwarded any version of your – enthusiastic: “Thank you very much be happy to send a copy paper to me….Needless to say, I apolo- for your message. It would be wonderful gize for the glitch in correspondence. to include your presentation in our pro- of our paper for review by gramme,” replied Dr. Samuel Heathcliff on that date. You see, dear reader, Dr. Joy was in a June 17. The coordinator requested that we bit of a pickle; she had been delegated the send him a copy of the complete paper by anonymous peer review process. task of damage control. She had to think July 15; on June 17 we replied, indicating Confident that we had made a posi- fast. Within less than a day, she had figured that we would be happy to send a copy of tive contact, and that our paper –which out “the problem”: “The problem with the our paper for review by that date. to us seemed self-evidently “up to” any lack of communication is that you haven’t Nothing in this correspondence with conceivable standard for presentation at been given the rules and regulations for Heathcliff indicated that acceptance of our a professional conference — we turned participating in the Congress…” Dr. Joy paper was contingent on any particular back to our work. then explained that our paper would have process, “a competitive review,” or any- Having completed another round be submitted to a juried competition to thing of that nature – such procedures of revisions and edits, on July 12 we at- determine if it was eligible for presentation are not usual for the acceptance of confer- tempted to resume our correspondence at such a prestigious academic venue as ence papers, which are typically approved with the SRU coordinator. This time, Shakespeares-R-Us. through submission of an abstract and however, rather than a cordial invitation Little did we know that this was only with little fanfare or controversy. In fact, to join scholars down under, the ultimate (Continued on p. 14) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Beatrice and Benedick, cont. from p. 13) I think the problem must centre on the the results by “mid-to-late September.” the overture in what was destined to be- phrase your ‘your full paper.’ Heathcliff On October 4, Beatrice wrote to Dr. come an academic version of the popular means a short paper, thirty minutes Joy: “Benedick and I were wondering if New York street hustle known as three- in length. I’m really sorry about the you’d made a decision yet about papers for card-monte. For the next twelve weeks Dr. confusion. But his alternative sugges- the WSC, as we’d heard nothing from you, Joy played fast and loose with her walnut tion – if you can’t submit a short paper and were expecting to hear at the latest by shells, hoping that we would not notice that within the next couple of weeks – has the end of September.” the pea kept appearing, under whichever a lot to recommend it…. Joy’s blithe reply was posted on the shell was required to keep her marks from same day: winning, or even understanding how the We weren’t exactly sure what the game was being played. reference to an “alternative suggestion” In response to the July 29 email, meant. The same day, Beatrice replied On the same day, Joy re- Beatrice wrote back on the same day, sup- to Dr. Joy: plying Dr. Joy with copies of Heathcliff’s plied: “I don’t know what initial email: I do not think that is where the main happened with your corre- confusion lies, although I see your point, but in any case, could you please spondence from Stratford. Dr. Joy was evidently ac- forward a seminar registration or tell Heathcliff sent the short me where I could get one. Our feeling quiring invaluable experi- was that our topic wouldn’t fit into any paper results out towards ence in the fine academic of the seminar categories, so we didn’t the end of September. The keep the registration, but we’d be glad art of splitting semantic to take a second look. final decisions were made hairs: “I think the problem after I left Stratford, when By August 2, Dr. Joy replied: “Heath- must centre on the phrase cliff can send you the full seminar regis- Faustus went over my sug- your ‘your full paper.’ tration form by email. Since I alerted him gestions, and Heathcliff to the problem with your application on Heathcliff means a short Friday, and heard from him immediately, I hasn’t sent me the list that paper, thirty minutes in expect that you’ll get the form right away.” resulted. But I do know Needless to say, we never did get a length. I’m really sorry registration form from Heathcliff — nor, that the mail went out, be- about the confusion.” over the next two months, from anyone. cause one person sent me a There followed several days of chatty emails between Beatrice and Dr. Joy, in question about a requested which the latter went out of her way to revision. I’ve forwarded As you can see, there was a definite explain how terribly awfully overwhelm- acceptance rather than mention of any ingly busy (and flustered) she was by the your email to Heathcliff kind of competition. Heathcliff was pressures of organizing a conference, asking him what also asking us to send our full paper, and Beatrice commiserated with her with based on our description of it (which stories from conferences she had helped happened.” of course we did in July although we to organize. We sent her by attachment received no acknowledgement). I first word drafts of two of the Tempest papers, wrote back in June asking for more the one we had proposed for the confer- I don’t know what happened with info on the seminar sessions so that we ence and a sister essay, for the “contest.” your correspondence from Stratford. could make a decision as to where we Joy sent them to on to the German com- Heathcliff sent the short paper results would fit in best. I also asked about the mittee member, Dr. Faustus. The results out towards the end of September. The possibility of financial assistance. The of the judging, Dr. Joy assured us, “will final decisions were made after I left rest, as you know, was silence. be circulated mid-to-late September,” Stratford, when Faustus went over after she, Heathcliff and Faustus could my suggestions, and Heathcliff hasn’t Dr. Joy was evidently acquiring in- meet at the Stratford-Upon Birthplace sent me the list that resulted. But I do valuable experience in the fine academic Trust Fund International Headquarters know that the mail went out, because art of splitting semantic hairs to frighten to judge the submissions. By August 10 one person sent me a question about elephants from living rooms: we had confirmation from Dr. Faustus that a requested revision. I’ve forwarded technology had triumphed – the two essays your email to Heathcliff asking him had arrived. We buckled down to wait for what happened. Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 15

patiently to hear and made no other (since the conference organizers seemed Needless to say, this email did not arrangements for the period, but at this so conveniently to know almost nothing exactly inspire us with confidence about point I can only surmise that Heathcliff about anything almost all of the time) we the contest procedures. Having been told has no interest in corresponding with stuck to the facts, which in this case – so not only that the results definitely had us, as he has never done so, even when we thought – rather eloquently contra- you asked him to, in any way after his dicted Dr. Joy’s breathless enthusiasm Then Dr. Joy proceeded to initial email with its enthusiastic accep- for Heathcliff. tance of our topic. I imagine he found “There is nothing from him,” stated complain to us about the afterwards that we were Liliputians. onerous nature of her trip I’m also assuming from his lack of a response that we are not, or rather no to England, the long hours longer, welcome to speak. Perhaps you “I am assuming from your involved in organizing a could let us know if my assumption is incorrect, as it is rather unfair to make answer that we are not, or conference, before conclud- us wait longer. I find the entire matter at least no longer, invited ing her missive with offering concerning our correspondence with the WSC very sad. You have been very to Australia,” continued to be a character witness for kind, and I thank you for that, but Beatrice. “Please correct Heathcliff: “He’s honest and otherwise it has been, to put it mildly, an unfortunate experience. me if I’m wrong. We are without guile, and he would both extremely busy people never deliberately avoid cor- “At least one traditional expert on The Tempest,” added Beatrice, “the editor who have kept those dates responding with you. Neither of one of the latest editions, is extremely clear, and we were excited of us knew you were Oxford- interested and rather impressed by our work, so I was hoping that it was of some at the prospect of sharing ians; Faustus didn’t know ei- interested to the academic community at our research and listening ther. In any case, it wouldn’t large. Perhaps I was mistaken.” By October 5, Dr. Joy replied with to the research of others. I have made a difference.” some good news: “I heard return email would appreciate knowing We thought this was, as from Nick that he’d sent your letter by hard mail and electronically – he doesn’t if it is no longer necessary they say in England, a “bit understand why it hasn’t reached you. He’s to keep those dates free, much.” Anyone who knows going to send both copies again and ask for confirmation that they arrived.” and cannot understand anything about the author- Then Dr. Joy proceeded to complain why someone won’t state ship question also knows to us about the onerous nature of her trip to England, the long hours involved in plain English the deci- that, ninety-nine percent of in organizing a conference, before con- sion that has clearly by the time, it makes all the dif- cluding her missive with offering to be a character witness for Heathcliff: “He’s hon- now been made.” ference in the world whether est and without guile, and he would never a person is identified by or- deliberately avoid corresponding with you. Neither of us knew you were Liliputians; thodox academicians as being Beatrice in her August 5 reply, “either to Faustus didn’t know either. In any case, it Benedick or to me, and yet it is after 2 p.m. “for us” or “agin’ us.” wouldn’t have made a difference.” in England of the second day. Perhaps you We thought this was, as they say in could ask him to try sending to my hotmail England, a “bit much.” Anyone who knows account.” been mailed out, but also that at least one anything about the authorship question Beatrice resupplied Dr. Joy with of the three judges didn’t know what they also knows that, ninety-nine percent of email addresses for both of us, and then were, we decided it was time to cut to the the time, it makes all the difference in the she dropped the other shoe: “Since nei- chase: “I definitely haven’t heard from world whether a person is a Liliputian or ther of us has ever given Heathcliff our him,” replied Beatrice: a Brobdingnagian. But rather than get address – I have gone through our entire caught up in suppositions about charac- correspondence with you and with him Neither has Benedick. We waited ter, or what anyone knew or didn’t know (Continued on p. 16) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Benedick and Beatrice, cont. from p. 15) email addresses, two of mine and one I continued to have that impression [to confirm this]—nor has he ever asked of Benedick’s. when I reread the papers, and that for it, I am at a loss to know how he could was the evaluation I left for Faustus in possibly have sent either of us a letter by On October 7, Dr. Joy wrote in re- Stratford. He got there after I left, and regular mail. In any case, no such letter sponse: “I have forwarded your preferred didn’t make his judgments until well has arrived.” email address to Heachliff.” Then she got into the first week of September. Since Funny how facts always trip up I haven’t seen the list of acceptances, I people who are working overtime to delude can’t tell you what happened. themselves into thinking that censorship By this time, Dr. Joy’s origi- is necessary for scholarship, to protect Yes, dear reader, you read that right. nally effusive emails were the “correct” ideas from the “incorrect” We have not altered any words in the quota- ones. starting to sound desperately tion: our work was good enough for pub- “I am assuming from your answer lication in a “specialized journal,” but not thin and evasive. Gone was that we are not, or at least no longer, suitable for an “international conference.” invited to Australia,” continued Beatrice: the confident chattiness and Beatrice was clearly not in a mood to mince words with Dr. Joy: “I did of course optimistic belief that if she Please correct me if I’m wrong. We are tell you,” her reply begins, both extremely busy people who have was just nauseatingly nice kept those dates clear, and we were that we would be fashioning power enough to us, while simul- excited at the prospect of sharing our points from the papers. We didn’t research and listening to the research taneously doing everything intend to give them in the ‘academic of others. I would appreciate knowing if paper’ format, but as you know we she could to scuttle our op- it is no longer necessary to keep those forwarded them that way because dates free, and cannot understand why portunities to find an audi- we had so little time. This was partly someone won’t state in plain English because Heathcliff didn’t or wouldn’t ence for our scholarship, we the decision that has clearly by now correspond with us or pass anything on been made. would just go away and leave to you after first saying that it would be wonderful to include our presentation her alone. Her two sentence After writing his, Beatrice had a few in your programme….since he has not further thoughts, so the same day, before reply to Beatrice’s October replied, I would think it would be a receiving a response, she added: relatively simple matter for you to ask 7 email read: “I’ve already him, since you’ve communicated with I spoke to you initially because I could asked Heathcliff for the him at least twice this week, if we are not get a response from [Heathcliff]. still speaking at your conference. Fail- whole list of results, not just I know there is no problem with my ing that, you could ask Dr. Faustus. It email address because I had received an yours, and he hasn’t com- appears that everyone else has known enthusiastic response from him origi- the outcome of the ‘competition’ since piled it. But I think in view nally, plus an automated reply saying Professor Faustus made his decision he was away from the office and would of the bad feeling all of the during the first week of September. I respond as soon as he returned. He did cannot understand why his ‘judgment’ mechanics have generated, not do so. Nor did he respond when concerning the subject of our possible I asked him if there were any funds you should probably plan not participation has become such a big available. Nor did he respond when I secret that it is hidden even from us. to come ‘Down Under.’” asked him to confirm he had received our paper. Nor has he responded to By this time, Dr. Joy’s originally your requests to communicate with effusive emails were starting to sound us. Nor did he forward any version of down to the serious business of explain- desperately thin and evasive. Gone was our papers to you for adjudication. Nor ing the (wholly unofficial) results of the the confident chattiness and optimistic did he resend me the seminar topics essay contest: belief that if she was just nauseatingly when requested he do so. nice enough to us, while simultaneously An early complaint I sent to the When Dr. Faustus and I went through doing everything she could to scuttle our WSC about two and a half months ago the short papers the first time, we both opportunities to find an audience for our was rerouted to you. You said you would admired the scholarship in yours, but scholarship, we would just go away and sort the problem out. Its apparently felt it was geared more towards pub- leave her alone. Her two sentence reply not sorted although Nick has three lication in a specialized journal than delivery at an international conference. (Continued on p. 17) Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 17 to Beatrice’s October 7 email read: “I’ve with your organization and that of these rules and regulations were, and already asked Nick for the whole list of re- the Renaissance Society of Arcadia, why he did not communicate them sults, not just yours, and he hasn’t compiled to which we applied in early June, directly to us himself as soon as he it. But I think in view of the bad feeling shortly before contacting Dr. Heath- became aware of the potential problem all of the mechanics have generated, you cliff. On June 13, within two weeks of with our application; should probably plan not to come ‘Down our abstract submission, we received 3) An explanation of why, for Under.’” the following reply: ‘We are pleased to almost four months, Dr. Heathcliff has Posted on October 9, two days after inform you that the 2006 RSA Program failed to do his job by communicating Beatrice’s email, this reply revealed yet Committee has accepted your paper with us using the official email address another curious wrinkle in our excellent ‘Erasmus’ for presentation at the RSA of the SRU, and has instead used you adventure. annual meeting in San Fransisco, 23- as his proxy; The results of the “contest,” although 25 March 2006….Congratulations.’ 4) An account of the criteria used mailed out to all the “contestants,” both by The entire process took less than three by you and Dr. Faustus for arriving at international postal courier and by email, your recommendations for papers for in late September, and then resent to us acceptance at the SRU conference; specifically by email a week later, had not 5) A list of the papers reviewed by yet been compiled on October 9, and were This time we had really fallen you and the full results of your delib- not therefore not available to the judges. erations; i.e. which papers have been At this point Beatrice was frustrated down the rabbit hole, into accepted and which refused; enough, as you may imagine, that she asked the dark underworld of hard- 6) A copy of a formal statement me to review the entire sequence of com- from you and Dr. Faustus explaining munication and craft a synoptic response ball academic politics, where the basis for your refusal to endorse our that would place a few of Dr. Joy’s numerous words serve egos, not truth participation in the SRU Congress, if liberties with the “simple truth miscalled that is in fact your position, for a more simplicity” in an appropriate context: or even inquiry. Gone were substantive reason than someone’s first name salutations, chatty alleged but unspecified “bad feeling.” Dear Dr. Joy: friendliness, and feigned These materials, I added, Beatrice has forwarded me a copy of her ignorance: Dr. Joy stood up latest communication to you, and your will doubtless go very to exonerate reply, regarding our June 17 request for straight on her throne and your organization from any imputa- a place on the conference schedule of proceeded to lecture me on tion of wrongdoing which might be the Shakespeares-R-Us World Congress determined from the above facts. this coming July for our two papers just how important she and Alternatively, perhaps you, Dr. Faus- on the sources of The Tempest. Your her colleagues, Dr. Faustus tus, and Dr. Heathcliff, could all be implication that in view of the ‘bad prevailed upon to defend the integrity feeling’ generated by the ‘mechanics’ of and Heathcliffe, really were. and values of your organization by af- the application process Beatrice should firming Heathcliff’s unqualified June ‘probably not’ attend the conference 17 acceptance of our proposal to speak strikes me as unintentionally ironic. A at the RSU Congress. Such a decision weeks and required only three emails. review of the progression of response will not only assure your membership RSA staff and organizers were courte- from your organization to our applica- of the opportunity to hear and debate ous, professional, and direct. tion reveals that the mechanics of bad controversial matters in an atmosphere feeling (as you call them) are entirely of informed collegiality, but will also In light of the contrasting difficulties of your organization’s construction. send a message to the world that your we have encountered with our applica- organization actively solicits a diversity tion to the SRU, I am requesting the I proceeded to recount, in purpose- of opinion on controversial subjects, following from you: fully excruciating detail, the entire se- defends academic freedom, and re- quence of events. Near the end I offered fuses to tolerate the stifling of the free 1) A list of the ‘rules and regula- the following comparison between our exchange of academic ideas in order tions’ of paper review for the 2006 SRU experience with the surreal atmosphere of to preserve an illusion of unanimity world Congress, alluded to in your July the SRU with the sober professionalism of on subjects about which an informed 29 letter; a related organization: diversity of opinion exists. 2) An explanation of why Dr. One might contrast our experience Heathcliff did not know, in June, what (Continued on p. 18) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Benedick and Beatrice, cont. from p. 17) dential. We would never publish a list tion with Dr. Joy but had not been able to This summative statement was cop- of rejections…. compose a one sentence email to Beatrice ied to Dr. Top-Hat (whose assistant swiftly or me for three months was because his and courteously responded without com- If you’d been a member of the RSU, computer – the very computer responsible menting on the contents), as well as to you would have received the mailing for compiling records of one of the largest the ubiquitous but professorially taciturn Faustus and I sent out late in August academic conferences in the world – was Dr. Heathcliff. which had several enclosures, includ- “fizzing out.” And here I had started to This time we had really fallen down ing a cover letter that explained why take it personally. the rabbit hole, into the dark underworld the organization has been having so Beatrice and I debated at length of hardball academic politics, where words much difficulty with correspondence. whether there was any point in perpetuat- serve egos – not truth, or even the spirit Among other things, our mailing list ing a correspondence with someone who of inquiry. Gone were first name saluta- has been out of date. What we didn’t say was writing every other day to Heathcliff tions, chatty friendliness, and the feigned still trying to pretend that the reason he ignorance: Dr. Joy stood up straight on The moral of our tale in could respond to us himself was because her throne and proceeded to lecture me his computer – the vital link in a worldwide about just how terribly important she and academic wonderland? chain of communications for one of the st her colleagues, Dr. Fausus and Heathcliffe, A dear friend, who hap- largest humanities conferences in the 21 really were: century – was broken. pens to be a regular con- Maybe, we thought, we’ll do better Mr. Benedick, tributor to one of the most with the SRU of Greater Arkadia, the local sibling organization of the World SRU, The rules and regulations for the RSU respected news outlets in of which we were both members in good Congress are not published in a consti- the world, commented: standing – so far as we knew. The Arkadia tution: they are received by members chapter was holding a conference during of the organization and newsletters “The academics involved the spring of 2007. Maybe it would be and other mailings during the course in the authorship issue are receptive. Beatrice hunted up a seminar of the five years between Congresses… topic, “Shakespeare and Textuality,” which Heathcliff must have thought you almost all like dead fish seemed to be an appropriate venue for our were a member….i.e., he must have going with the stream. You paper illustrating that Richard Eden’s De thought you knew the panels were Orbe Novo – from which Shakespeare de- already arranged and the only short are the live ones, swim- rived, among many other new world Tem- papers which could still be submitted ming against it. It’s a pest motifs, the peculiar name, “Setebos,” would be subject to a selection process. for Caliban’s God – was a better Tempest We usually choose about four from a Sisyphean task...but you source than Strachey’s “True Reportory.” submission of a couple of dozen. have to try.” The SRU has a peculiar manner of assigning participants to seminars, one Professor Faustus and I made our deci- that has been perfected since the days sion based on our professional expertise is that Dr. Heathcliff has been working when Charles Boyle and other Oxfordians not only in Shakespeare Studies, but with an old computer which has been were reportedly welcomed with open arms also in organizing these conferences. fizzing out…. during the 1990s. Members request to We’re both senior Shakespeareans, participate in various seminars, and are situated in America and Germany. “Fizzing out?” assigned to them on a first come, first serve We’ve both been longtime members of Needless to say, I had not asked Dr. basis without submitting abstracts. Only the SRU executive, and we’ve worked to Joy to “publish” a list of rejections. But after they have been assigned to a particu- before not only to select short papers since she could not very well respond to lar seminar are they asked to forward an for presentation but also to edit the what I had asked, she responded to what abstract to the seminar leaders, who are proceedings of the volumes that result I had not asked. It wouldn’t do to make then – apparently – free to allocate places from these congresses…. it obvious that Beatrice and I were the in the seminar only to those participants only “contestants” who didn’t win. As whose contributions are deemed accept- Here comes the “punchline”: for membership, as a member in “good able, and to toss the careers and feelings standing” of the American chapter of RSU, of those they don’t like to the dogs. In choosing papers, we use the kinds I was proof positive that the International’s From the point of view of limiting of criteria that would be used by a mailing list was not operational. But I the exchange of unauthorized ideas, the specialist journal in the field, and was relieved to to learn that the reason method works like a well-oiled machine. similarly, our deliberations are confi- Dr. Heathcliff was in regular communica- (Continued on p. 26) Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 19

(News, cont. from p. 4) on any of the above, or if you have points probably on Cyprus (see, for example, 2.1.1 that I should have addressed, please let to 2.1.207), was the dramatist. de Ulloa and Tomson on St. Elmo’s fire, a me know. I look forward to having your not uncommon phenomenon. comments. Hunter, Elze, Furness, Kittredge Stanley Wells: Once More Into the and Kinney are among the leading Shake- All the best, Breach.... speare scholars who have been skeptical of Strachey as the source. Kittredge wrote Richard Whalen Stanley Wells has engaged Oxford- that “Strachey’s account of the wreck, for ians and other non-Stratfordians in a new instance, is in striking contrast to what we book with a sensational cover and also find inThe Tempest....The situation in The in a caustic article in an entertainment Tempest is utterly different” (1936). The Hunter, Elze, Furness, Kit- industry newspaper. earlier sources and considered opinions tredge and Kinney are among The new book from the eminent like Kittredge’s must be addressed before scholar and chairman of the Shakespeare declaring that “Malone and Luce were the leading Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is entitled Is It True What right” based solely on what might be plau- They Say About Shakespeare? It’s a slim, sible. I wish Shakespeare Quarterly’s peer scholars who have been lighthearted volume in Q&A format. The reviewers had considered more thoroughly skeptical of Strachey as the sensational, cartoonish cover shows a the force of the alternative scenario. baffled “Shakespeare” of the First Folio This alternative scenario is made glar- source. Kittredge wrote that portrait being pulled in a tug of war by ingly apparent in your article but only at two Elizabethans, probably Marlowe and the very end, where it is acknowledged, but “Strachey’s account of the Oxford, or maybe Bacon. only briefly, as a plausibly distinct possibil- wreck, for instance, is in The authorship controversy gets ity: “Events in the play and the narrative seven of the eighty-eight short chapters. vary widely at many points, of course [of striking contrast to what we Wells dismisses the claims for Oxford and course!]; in his last solo play, Shakespeare five other candidates. His two pages on borrowed widely and eclectically, and a find inThe Tempest....The Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, are thorough rummaging through English situation in The Tempest is on the other hand surprisingly sympa- and Continental literature might uncover thetic. He quotes from the jacket of Robin [has uncovered!] earlier possible sources utterly different.” (1936) The Williams’ 2006 book but does not identify for many, if not most, of The Tempest’s the excerpt as the publisher’s promotional similarities to ‘True Reportory.’” And, earlier sources and considered copy. Stratfordian readers of Wells’ book in the next, and penultimate, paragraph: opinions like Kittredge’s must may think he believes the countess had a “There’s much more to The Tempest’s story significant influence on William of Strat- line, of course, [of course!] drawn largely be addressed before declar- ford, which seems unlikely. from European sources, old and new...” How true! This acknowledgment at the ing that “Malone and Luce — R. Whalen very end of the article undercuts all that were right” based solely on precedes. At the very least, it should have been put at the beginning of the article what might be plausible. I to inform the reader of the challenge to be addressed. wish Shakespeare Quarterly’s The fundamental and fatal flaw in the peer reviewers had considered article is that it is simply not credible that in order to write The Tempest the great more thoroughly the force of dramatist–who read and “borrowed widely and eclectically” and whose many and var- the alternative scenario. ied sources and influences for all the plays have been copiously documented–would have needed Strachey to “bundle” them and provide a “basic outline.” PS: Ren Draya of Blackburn College I hope you will take these brief and I are deep into an Oxfordian edition of comments in the spirit in which they are Othello, and I have ordered a copy of your offered–not to be difficult or contentious wife’s book. As you might expect, we’re but as an attempt to foster fair and open finding many indications that Oxford, discussion of the evidence. If I can expand who was in Venice for several months and page 20 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Oxford’s Muse, cont. from p. 1) possessed, given the gift of tongues and Plutarch: to a sub-literate terracotta-toothed using it to spew venom. The verbal abuse imbecile with violent tendencies. Wait, strikes us as a spontaneous and unstop- He [Antony] had a noble minde, as well to other words are coming to mind. I pable burst of long pent-up wrath, all the punish offendors, as to reward well doers: was married to a simian, knuckle- more impressive in that we know in the and yet he did exceede more in geuing, draggin’, cousin-f***in’, dog-sellin’, back of our minds that the sequence of then in punishing. Now for his outragious mother-lovin’, trailer-dwellin’, brain- insults was really crafted and memorized. less amoeba on the booger-farm of the Even more impressive perhaps when we realize that such comedy moments We know that Edward stand in a tradition honed by Shakespeare de Vere was accused of Kent’s may be a special himself. Witness Kent’s undermotivated tour-de-force, but Elizabe- assessment of Oswald in King Lear as launching into fits of railing in his private life. than verbal vitriol is avail- A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken able to all of us for our meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, Former servants Faunt three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy and Wotton testify to his use. It is not difficult to worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver’d find a Shakespeare “In- action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, “raginge deameanore” in superserviceable, finical rogue; one- 1573. Though panicked sult Kit”: a print or online trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst means of constructing be a bawd in way of good service, and and attempting to save his art nothing but the composition of a own traitorous neck, Arun- from lists of adjectives and knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the nouns appearing in the son and heir of a mungril bitch; one del, in his sixth point of whom I will beat into clamorous whin- accusation against Oxford, canon a carefully crafted ing, if thou deni’st the least syllable of zinger to send an e-friend thy addition. specified his “raylinge at Francis Sowthwell for or to level at the source of (II.ii.15-24) your road rage, as many a commendinge the Qwenes But Kent himself does soon add singeinge one night.” and, beslubbering onion-eyed several syllables, not forgetting to specify, clotpole has been made to when time and place serve half a moment more generally, Arundel later, that Oswald is also a “brazen-fac’d claims that “in raylinge of realize. Of course, such varlet” (II.ii.28) and “whoreson cullionly trifold derivatives can be barber-monger” (II.ii.33). all estates he over runnes Kent’s may be a special tour-de-force, him spareinge no woman lobbed by any weedy rump- but Elizabethan verbal vitriol is available fed scut. Shakespeare to all of us for our use. It is not difficult be she never so virtuous to find a Shakespeare “Insult Kit”: a print nor any man be he never apparently undertook a or online means of constructing from lists mission to raise the mere of adjectives and nouns appearing in the so honourable, and this canon a carefully crafted zinger to send an beast beinge never re- insult to a fine art of ex- e-friend or to level at the source of your tended railing. road rage, as many a beslubbering onion- strained from this libertie eyed clotpole has been made to realize. of raylinge.” Of course, such trifold derivatives can be lobbed by any weedy rump-fed scut. Shakespeare apparently undertook a mis- bayou. (That might sound mean, but sion to raise the mere insult to a fine art I assure you my ex-husband does not of extended railing. manner of railing he commonly vsed, understand hyphenated references.) If the Earl of Oxford did not already mocking and flouting of euerie man: Such a colorful string of invectives replicate Marc Antony in the social sphere, that was remedied by it selfe. For a man in dizzyingly rapid-fire delivery makes then he must have modeled himself after might as boldly exchaunge a mock with for exhilarating entertainment. We seem the Roman captain once having read him, & he was as well contented to be to be witnessing someone momentarily mocked, as to mock others. Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 21

(412) the practice of railing not as a sudden loss “not mark’d, or not laugh’d at, [it] strikes of emotional control in public but as a him into melancholy, and then there’s a We know that Edward de Vere was cultivated activity and craft. partridge wing sav’d, for the fool will eat accused of launching into fits of railing in In Much Ado About Nothing Benedick no supper that night” (II.i.147-150). The his private life. Former servants Faunt and rails against women and marriage, and assertion is nearly identical to the profes- Wotton testify to his “raginge deameanore” most certainly represents Shakespeare sional insult Malvolio levels at another in 1573 (Nelson 96). Though panicked and himself to some extent, as is indicated by “allowed fool” — Feste in Twelfth Night, attempting to save his own traitorous neck, Beatrice’s insulting spin on an assessment whom Lady Olivia defends against her dour Arundel, in his sixth point of accusation of his public role: “Why, he is the Prince’s steward: “There is no slander in an allowed against Oxford, specified his “raylinge at jester, a very dull fool; only his gift is in fool, though he do nothing but rail; nor no Francis Sowthwell for commendinge the devising impossible slanders. None but railing in a known discreet man, though he Qwenes singeinge one night” (Nelson 207) libertines delight in him, and the commen- do nothing but reprove” (I.v.94-96). Once and, more generally, Arundel claims that dation is not in his wit, but in his villainy; again, if railing — or even simply calling “in raylinge of all estates he over runnes someone “a time-pleaser, an affection’d him spareinge no woman be she never ass” (II.iii.148), or Sir Christopher Hatton so virtuous nor any man be he never so Not coincidentally, of course, an “affected fribble” — is not slander, then honourable, and this beast beinge never “Shake-speare” appreciated what can it be but a sometimes impres- restrained from this libertie of raylinge” sive, delightfully cathartic, dramatically (Nelson 204). the sublime dramatic beauty entertaining moment? And hence the free Not coincidentally, of course, “Shake- of a devastating rail, of vitu- venting of the sin of wrath is forgivable. speare” appreciated the sublime dramatic This seems to be the attitude of Lady Olivia, beauty of a devastating rail, of vituperative perative abuse, as evidenced a high-ranking woman used to flattery and abuse, as evidenced by his tendency to treat by his tendency to treat railing sought by suitors but spuriously commit- railing as a kind of talent, and one invested ted to virginity and who on occasion lapses in characters who seem in dramatic context as a kind of talent, and one in- into the royal “we” (e.g., I.v.218). There can most favored by the playwright. In 2 Henry vested in characters who seem be little doubt it was Queen Elizabeth’s VI the noble Gloucester tries to expose attitude, too. the base motives of those who would have in dramatic context most Other railing characters appear him arrested for treason, but the Cardinal favored by the playwright. In throughout the canon, again always mani- tells Henry, “My liege, his railing is in- festing some key aspect of Shakespeare, tolerable” (III.i.172). Similarly, everyone 2 Henry VI the noble Glouces- who, for example, seems sympathetic to agrees that in King John the Bastard is the ter tries to expose the base Timon of Athens, a character who spends most compelling character and his most the better part of his play railing against memorable speech is that on the subject motives of those who would Athenians and humankind. of Commodity, i.e., expedient self-interest have him arrested for treason, or “Worldliness, compliance, compromise, Your reeking villainy. Live loath’d and long, policy, diplomacy, casuistry, expediency, but the Cardinal tells Henry, Most smiling, smooth, detested parasites, Courteous destroyers, affable wolves, meek bears, opportunism” (Goddard 142). “My liege, his railing is intol- You fools of fortune, trencher friends, time’s flies, Cap and knee slaves, vapours, and minute-lacks! And why rail I on this commodity? erable” (III.i.172). Similarly, Of man and beast the infinite malady But for because he hath not wooed me yet; Crust you quite o’er! Not that I have the power to clutch my hand everyone agrees that in King When his fair angels would salute my palm, (III.vi.93-99) But for my hand, as unattempted yet, John the Bastard is the most Like a poor beggar raileth on the rich. compelling character... Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail Indeed, one entire scene in the And say there is no sin but to be rich; play consist of nothing but an extended And being rich, my virtue then shall be curse: To say there is no vice but beggary. for he both pleases men and angers them, Let me look back upon thee. O thou wall, (II.i.587-596) and then they laugh at him and beat him” That girdlest in those wolves, dive in the earth, (II.i.137-142). And fence not Athens! Matrons, turn incontinent! This self-conscious commitment to This certainly sounds like a sum- Obedience fail in children! slaves and fools, Pluck the grave wrinkled senate from the bench, railing, undertaken with faux determina- mation of Oxford’s situation at Elizabeth’s And minister in their steads! to general filths tion on the Bastard’s part but also with the (the “Prince’s”) court (Ogburn and Ogburn Convert o’ the instant, green virginity, adamant zeal with which one vows to eat 483), with the “impossible slanders” being Do ‘t in your parents’ eyes! bankrupts, hold fast; more healthily or learn how to play the his theatrical entertainments (Clark 542). Rather than render back, out with your knives, ukelele indicates that Shakespeare views Beatrice also says that if Benedick’s wit is (Continued on p. 22) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009 (Oxford’s Muse. cont. from p.21) Shakespeare. Volume 1. Chicago: The And cut your trusters’ throats! bound servants, sack of monkey-sh*t he is. Hallelujah, University of Chicago Press, 1951. steal! holy sh*t. Where’s the Tylenol? Large-handed robbers your grave masters are, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. And pill by law. Maid, to thy master’s bed; Warner Bros., 1989. Thy mistress is o’ the brothel! Son of sixteen, pluck the lined crutch from thy old limping sire, With it beat out his brains! Piety, and fear, Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary. Religion to the gods, peace, justice, truth, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, Domestic awe, night-rest, and neighbourhood, Hey, if any of you are look- 2003. Instruction, manners, mysteries, and trades, Degrees, observances, customs, and laws, ing for any last-minute gift Decline to your confounding contraries, Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn. And let confusion live! Plagues, incident to men, ideas for me, I have one. I’d This Star of England. Westport, CT: Your potent and infectious fevers heap Greenwood Press, Pub., 1952. On Athens, ripe for stroke! Thou cold sciatica, like Frank Shirley, my boss, Cripple our senators, that their limbs may halt As lamely as their manners. Lust and liberty right here tonight. I want Plutarch. The Life of Marcus Antonius. Creep in the minds and marrows of our youth, Trans. Thomas North. 1579. That ‘gainst the stream of virtue they may strive, him brought from his happy And drown themselves in riot! Itches, blains, Sow all the Athenian bosoms; and their crop holiday slumber over there on Antony and Cleopatra: A New Variorum Be general leprosy! Breath infect breath, Melody Lane with all the other Edition of Shakespeare. Ed. Marvin at their society, as their friendship, may Spevack. NY: MLA, 1990. 397-455. merely poison! Nothing I’ll bear from thee, rich people...and I wanna look But nakedness, thou detestable town! Take thou that too, with multiplying bans! him straight in the eye and The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Timon will to the woods; where he shall find Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997. The unkindest beast more kinder than mankind. wanna tell him what a cheap The gods confound--hear me, you good gods all-- The Athenians both within and out that wall! lying no-good rotten four- And grant, as Timon grows, his hate may grow To the whole race of mankind, high and low! Amen. flushing low-life snake-licking dirt-eating inbred overstuffed (IV.i.1-41) ignorant blood-sucking dog- Thus Timon asks the gods to make kissing brainless dickless him a better misanthrope, but he’s doing just fine already. And what a nice final hopeless heartless fat-ass touch of pious sincerity with the “Amen”! bug-eyed stiff-legged spotty- Thus Timon asks the gods So don’t be a gleeking beef-witted knave: proffer up a sack-spiked egg-nog lipped worm-headed sack of to make him a better misan- toast to Edward de Vere the next time monkey-sh*t he is. Hallelu- thrope, but he’s doing just fine you watch Chevy Chase in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation and hear jah, holy sh*t. Where’s the already. And what a nice final this outburst: Tylenol? touch of pious sincerity with Hey, if any of you are looking for any the “Amen”! last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I’d like Frank Shirley, my boss, right here tonight. I want him brought from Works Cited his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people Brett Butler: The Child Ain’t Right. Show- and I want him brought right here with a time Comedy Superstars. Carsey-War- big ribbon on his head and I wanna look ner Productions, 1993. him straight in the eye and wanna tell him what a cheap lying no-good rotten Clark, Eva Turner. Hidden Allusions in four-flushing low-life snake-licking dirt- Shakespeare’s Plays. 3rd ed. by Ruth eating inbred overstuffed ignorant blood- Loyd Miller. Port Washington: Ken- sucking dog-kissing brainless dickless nikat Press, 1974. hopeless heartless fat-ass bug-eyed stiff-legged spotty-lipped worm-headed Goddard, Harold C. The Meaning of Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 23 (Spenser’s E.K., cont. from p. 1) bridge at the urging of Sir Thomas’ son.12 published until 1583; de Vere is clearly the the glosses for Spenser and the Calendar, He was residing in rooms on Broad Street leading candidate for the role of receiver with Harvey having been the lender or go- near Bishopsgate in September 1578 after and publisher of the private manuscript— between in both instances. Both Harvey returning from his attendance on the as suggested by Nina Green.17 Neither and de Vere had been present at the funeral Queen in her summer Progress.13 He Harvey nor Spenser nor their Cambridge of Sir Thomas after his death in August had been praised along with Philip Sidney classmate Edward Kirke18 were in any 1577, later commemorated in Harvey’s (the eventual dedicatee of Shepheardes position financially to accomplish the task Latin eulogy Musarum Lachrymae printed Calendar) by Harvey in Book IV of Gratu- of printing and publishing the “boke” of in January 1578.9 E. K. refers both to lationum Valdenensium in August 1578 at Sir Thomas. “Musarum” and to Harvey’s better known Audley End in Essex, specifically referred Harvey had half-seriously urged Latin oration at Audley End in August to in the SK gloss above. de Vere in Gratulationem to put away 1578, whose Book IV was in large part an De Vere’s debut as a courtly poet “bloodless” literary pursuits for arms extended praise to de Vere(and Sidney, in Dainty Devices in 1576 had used the and military preparations, but appears to Leicester et al): initials E. O. for Earl of Ox(en)forde. What have subsequently enlisted de Vere’s aid Nelson terms a “clumsy” but memorable in launching the career of Spenser as a “conceit” of de Vere’s appears in both the new poet. E.K. returns the favor to his prefatory poem to Bedingfield’s translation Harvey’s lending of the un- of Cardanus’ Comforte (1573), and in one of the Dainty poems, and then reappears In short de Vere as a courtier published manuscripts of Sir in Shepheardes Calendar, nearly verbatim Thomas to E. K. also raises but with a graceful twist.14 Compare E. and Harvey/Spenser as uni- O.’s “For he that beats the bush the bird versity scholars were involved the question of how Harvey not gets” and “And he that beats the bush, got them in the first place the wished bird not gets” with Spenser’s in seeking Court preferment more concise “I beate the bush, the birds at this time. Harvey’s Audley from Smith’s widow, and to them do flye.” Clearly, Spenser is both why he would have handed echoing and altering E. O.’s lines, and de End address to de Vere seems Vere himself may be one of the persons to set the stage for future them to E. K. The expla- secretly represented in the Calendar, nation which makes sense although there are conflicting scholarly patronage requests to de Vere, theories as which character represents Sidney, and others. The Shep- is that Harvey was seeking Oxford—Thenot, Willye, or Cuddy.”15 patronage, preferment, and In short de Vere as a courtier and heardes Calendar itself is in Harvey/Spenser as university scholars were part a patronage tour de force. publication not only for Sir involved in seeking Court preferment at Thomas and Spenser, but this time. Harvey’s Audley End address to de Vere seems to set the stage for future also for himself... patronage requests to de Vere, Sidney, and “very special and good friend” Harvey in others. The Shepheardes Calendar itself the postscript to his epistle, urging Harvey is in part a patronage tour de force. E. K. to publish his own English verses “which himself says that Colin Clout, or the poet of lie hid” in “hateful darkness,” probably Maister Gabriel Harvey of whose spe- the Calendar had moved from the North of a reference to Harvey’s well-known ef- ciall commendation, aswell in Poetrye England to the South (Kent) on the advice forts to introduce the metrics of Latin as Rhetorike and other choyce learn- of his friend Hobbinol (Harvey) in order hexameters into English verse. This was ing, we have lately had a sufficient tryall to seek “more preferment.”16 a crucial role for de Vere, who patronized in duerse his workes, but specially in Harvey’s lending of the unpublished and encouraged many new young writers his Musarum Lachrymae, and his late manuscripts of Sir Thomas to E. K. also at this time while he was still in favor with Gratulationum Valdinensium which raises the question of how Harvey got them Elizabeth and the English court: Thomas boke in the progresse at Audley in Es- in the first place from Smith’s widow, and Bedingfield, John Lyly, Anthony Munday sex, he dedicated in writing unto her why he would have handed them to E. K. and Thomas Watson, among others. If this 10 Highnesse. The explanation that makes sense is that attribution of de Vere as E. K. is correct, Harvey was seeking patronage, preferment, we can add Gabriel Harvey and Edmund Edward de Vere grew up in Sir and publication not only for Sir Thomas Spenser to the list.

Thomas Smith’s household, under his and Spenser, but also for himself includ- Mark Anderson notes that Spenser 11 tutelage from at least age ten to twelve, ing the “boke on government” and the he supported Harvey financially at Cam- Calendar. De Republica Anglorum was not (Continued on p. 24) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009 (Spenser’s E.K., cont. from p. 24) required and expected in private secretaries to both Harvey and Spenser. Elsewhere in was seeking a post as de Vere’s secretary to Elizabethan nobility—most of all the 1580 Harvey in a letter to Spenser refers in 1578-157918 even though he was still need for extreme privacy and secrecy. All to E. K. as “alias you know who.” E. K. employed by other noble families including of these qualifications are on display in in the context of the Calendar is a strat- Leicester and Sidney/Pembroke. Richard the interactions between Spenser, Harvey egem for keeping secret the identity of a Rambuss argues that the Calendar was in and E.K. in the Shepheardes Calendar. higher ranking person who is providing part written to show Spenser’s worthiness According to Nina Green’s analysis, the “patronage of the new poete” as the for employment as a private secretary, the alternate theory of E. K. as the Cam- epistle clearly states. which indeed is what occurred for Spenser bridge classmate of Harvey and Spenser, Evidently Sir Philip Sidney only in 1580 with Lord Arthur Grey in Ireland.19 Edward Kirke (1553-1616), has not been became the dedicatee of the work months Harvey’s praising of nearly the entire Eliza- substantiated by scholars.20 In contrast the after E. K. had finished his glosses and bethan court in Gratulationum showed evidence above strongly links de Vere to written his epistle dated in April 1579. his intentions of gaining patronage, but Harvey in several intimate ways—personal, The sequence of events and publication financial, literary—prior to the publicaton dates delineated above—the death and In contrast the evidence above of the Calendar, and to Spenser as potential patron and publisher, friendly reader and strongly links de Vere to Harvey literary defender, fellow poet and fellow in several intimate ways—per- Chaucerian. Spenser’s October 1579 let- The use of the initials E. K. ter to Harvey quoted above is a product in Spenser’s letter to Harvey sonal, financial, literary—prior of his short stint in Leicester’s household to the publicaton of the Calen- immediately prior to the Calendar’s pub- dated October 15/16 1579, lication in December 1579, when de Vere prior to the registry and pub- dar, and to Spenser as potential was very much at Court embroiled in the patron and publisher, friendly heated aftermath and personal challenges lication of the Calendar on 5 provoked by his notorious tennis court December 1579, appears to reader and literary defender, quarrel with Sidney, which occurred fellow poet and fellow Chauce- months after E.K.’s epistle dated 10 April be a shorthand way to refer to of 1579, sometime in August according to a court poet and patron who rian. Spenser’s October 1579 Nelson and others.21 letter to Harvey quoted above There are three later pieces of evi- is known to both Harvey and dence linking de Vere to Spenser: first the Spenser. Elsewhere in 1580 is a product of his short stint literary homage paid to the Earl of Oxford in in Leicester’s household imme- a prefatory sonnet to the The Faery Queen, Harvey in a letter to Spenser not published until 1590 but already in refers to E. K. as “alias you diately prior to the Calendar’s composition with parts in Harvey’s hands publication in December 1579, as early as 1580. Second, Spenser’s Muio- know who.” potmos (1590) also alludes to the de Vere- when de Vere was very much at Sidney tennis court quarrel of fall 1579 as Court embroiled in the heated af- having unfortunately occurred “Between two mighty ones of great estate” after being funeral of Sir Thomas in August 1577, termath and personal challenges “Stirred up through wrathful nemesis.”22 the publication of Harvey’s Musarum provoked by his notorious tennis Finally, Spenser’s (or Munday’s? see below) Lachrymae in January 1578, the Audley translation of the pseudo-Platonic dialogue End Progress of the Queen in August 1578 court quarrel with Sidney... Axiochus, published in 1592, contained with Harvey’s address of praise to de Vere as an addendum the January 1581 oration and Sidney in Gratulationum, and E. K.’s given by de Vere’s page to Elizabeth at the letter dated 10th of April 1579—suggests 23 the scandal over the publication of his tilting tourney at Whitehall, in which de that Harvey would have recruited de Vere, Speculum Tuscanismi in 1580, with its Vere’s performance as “Knight of the Sun sent him the manuscripts of Sir Thomas 24 attacks and satires on de Vere and others Tree” won top honors. and of Spenser and even poems by himself at Court, ruined his chances, at least in The use of the initials E. K. in Spens- in the eighteen or so months from fall of some circles. Yet another of de Vere’s young er’s letter to Harvey dated October 15/16, 1577 to spring 1579, during which time writers and secretaries, Angel Day, author 1579, prior to the registry and publication E. K. worked on his own contributions to of The English Secretary (begun in 1580 of the Calendar on December 5, 1579, the Calendar. but not published with its dedication to de appears to be a shorthand way to refer to Why is de Vere not signed as E. O. Vere until 1586) outines the qualifications the court poet and patron who is known in the Calendar as he had been in the Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 25

Richard Edwards collection of poems in E. K. refers, there is the sentence “so in himsel. Wright admits in conclusion that 1576 published as Dainty Devices? We Englande the kinges eldest sonne is called no biographical or other details of this 28 agree with the view that the reasons were kat exochn the prince”; one thinks of de Edward Knight have ever been discovered. primarily those of political caution in the Vere as an eldest son honored at birth by She unwittingly aids our case for de Vere supercharged atmosphere of Elizabeth’s King Edward VI and favored by Elizabeth as E. K. and Edward Knight by noting court during the three years of the French as her “cousin.” that Munday, newly employed in 1579 marriage proposal involving the Duc de Our best candidate for explaining E. as de Vere’s private secretary, worked in Alençon between 1578 to 1581, with the K. is the pseudonym, “Edward Knight.” the print shops in the area of London tennis-court quarrel of de Vere and Sidney Harvey’s phrase “alias you know who” where the Calendar was published. She six months later showing just how volatile points to a pseudonym, as do E. K.’s own supposes that Munday may have been the issue of Elizabeth’s marital status words in the glosses discussing pseud- introduced to Spenser by E.K., may have truly was. onyms in literature. On 10 October 1579 heard Spenser recite his poetry, or even We owe to E. K. in his glosses to the “E. K. Gentleman” wrote and signed as “Ed. seen proofs of the Calendar in the print Calendar the direct identification of Colin Knight” one of the seven prefatory poems shop—speculations which would explain Cloute as the poem’s authorial persona to Anthony Munday’s Mirror of Mutability how Munday’s Mutability contains so many and Harvey as Hobbinol, as well as his Spenserian echoes and lines and parallels acknowlegement in the epistle that the Celeste Turner Wright argued despite being published two months prior poet himself had explained to him some of to the anonymous Calendar—at a time the poem’s private allegorical meanings. E. in her short article “Anthony when no one knew of Edmund Spenser as K. is fully engaged as a participant in the Munday, ‘Edward’ Spenser, a poet except his private friends. games of literary disguise in the Calendar, Turner describes Munday’s work in as when he wonders in his October glosse and E. K.” that E. K. was 1579 and 1580 as euphuistic, noting de whether Cuddye is the poet himself or the same Edward Knight Vere’s hiring of John Lyly as his other some other secret personage. He identifies private secretary at this time. She quotes Leicester by name as the favorite “worthy” who mysteriously wrote and fulsome and flowery euphuistic passages of Elizabeth, and flatters Her Majesty as published only one book, from the Tryall of Truth. The strongly the rightful successor to the Lancastrian Calvinist even “Puritanical” tone of Tryall line via her father and grandfather, Henry Tryall of Truth, registered is consistent with Munday’s role as a per- VIII and Henry VII. These disguises insure 13 November 1579 to Edw. secutor of Catholics, de Vere’s swing back that only courtly readers with private to the Protestant side circa 1580, and the knowledge of the various persons alluded Knight.” Wright’s anlysis sug- Calvinist tracts dedicated to de Vere by his to would connect accurately the poem’s gestively links Anthony Mun- uncle Arthur Golding and others. Turner characters with members of Court and quotes lines from the Tryall that seem Elizabethan society. day, E.K. and the Earl of Ox- to anticipate the Calendar — including E. K. discusses the pseudonyms of ford as intimates of Spenser’s imagery of Elizabeth as a shepherd Queen Gabriel Harvey such as “Tyrannomastix” next to God, England as a “little shepcoate” and the broad topic of hidden authorship in circle in 1579 and connects and the English people as “simple sheep.” literature in his glosses to the September “E.K.” to the literary pseud- Without direct comparison, she claims to eclogue, yet he maintains the mystery of find parallels in the fourteen-line rhyming his own initials. We have several hints or onym “Edward Knight.” couplet poem of Ed. Knight in the preface suggestions to pursue. E. K. could stand to Mutability to various of the eclogues of for Edward Knight or Edward King; de dedicated to Edward de Vere, the Earl of the Calendar. Her stated conclusion is that Vere was named for King Edward VI, who 29 the Tryall by Edward Knight flowed from had sent a gold cup to Hedingham Castle Oxford. Celeste Turner Wright argued in her short article “Anthony Munday, the “same quill” which wrote the glosses as a birthday gift for the young Earl in to the Calendar, even though she cannot 25 ‘Edward’ Spenser, and E. K.” that E. K. 1555. As an Earl he was of much higher identify who Edward Knight really was. rank than a mere knight, but “Knight” was the same Edward Knight who mysteri- ously wrote and published only one book, I am convinced that E.K. and Edward would still be an allusion to his nobility. Knight are the best explanation for these Nina Green suggests Edmundus Kedemon, Tryall of Truth, registered 13 November 1579 to Edw. Knight.”30 Wright’s anlysis initials, which are not a big leap from E. a clever translation of Spenser’s name into O. (Earle of Oxenford). The coincidence Greek.26 Then there is the phrase, trans- suggestively links Anthony Munday, E.K. and the Earl of Oxford as intimates of of de Vere’s secretary Munday publishing literated from the Greek, “kat eikasmon,” his first work under de Vere’s patronage which appears in the February glosses, Spenser’s circle in 1579 and connects “E.K.” to the literary pseudonym “Edward just two months prior to the Calendar’s at least a verbal and visual echo of E. K. appearance, with “E. K. Gentleman” and 27 Knight” -- without, of course, realizing the whatever its provenance. Finally, in the “E. K.” appearing in the prefaces to both De Republica of Sir Thomas Smith to which possibility that Knight might be Oxford page 26 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

18 Anderson, 140. works, is unlikely to be coincidental. The only person of rank 19 Rambuss, Richard. “The Secretary’s Study: The Secret in the prefatory poems to Mutability, dedicated to de Vere, is Designs of the Shephearde’s Calendar,” ELH 59:2 (Summer, E. K. Gentleman, while Munday himself was still employed 1992), 313-335. in the printing industry in a shop in the small area of London 20 EDVN, 49. Green cites William Oram’s testimony (Oram, where these works came to press in the fall of 1579. This argues op. cit.) that the identification “goes nowhere through lack strongly for E. K. as the alias “Edward Knight” in all three works, of information” (6). and Munday as go-between to the print shops in his new role as 21 Nelson op. cit., 195-200; Anderson, 151-52. de Vere’s secretary. 22 Oram, 413. However I am not certain of the authorship of Tryall of Truth, 23 Nelson, 262; Anderson 170-71. with its heavy anti-papist Protestant propagandizing. The E.K. 24 Anderson 170. Gentleman of the preface to Mutability does mention the same 25 Nelson, 20. “widow’s mite,” or penny offering to Jesus, as does the Edw. Knight 26 EDVN 49. of the preface to Tryall. But Edward Knight in Tryall takes pains 27 Oram, 51. to abuse great ones and persons of high rank, and speaks more in 28 The phrase occurs in chapter 18 of Smith’s De Republica the voice of a Puritan preacher than Spenser’s E.K. Anglorum (1583). Accessed online at Constitution.Org, It is my hope that researchers working on Anthony Munday, http://www.constitution.org/eng/repang.htm, March 28, Edmund Spenser, Gabriel Harvery and de Vere himself will be able 2009. to do more digging into the available evidence from the lives and 29 “Spirited, pioneering professor emerita Celeste Turner writings of these men between 1577-1580, to settle the issue of Wright” was the first tenured woman faculty member at the E. K.’s identification and his contributions to the literary careers University of California, Davis. When she died in 1999 at of Spenser and Harvey. the age of 93, the University remembered here as one who left “a legacy that includes the development of the campus’s 1 Edward de Vere Newsletter, issues 49-55 (March 1993-Sep- humanities curriculum, a theater building named after her, tember 1993). a poetry contest she created and countless students who 2 Shephearde’s Calendar, The Yale Edition of the Shorter benefited from her academic fervor....” Poems of Edmund Spenser, William Oram et al., eds., New “Few faculty colleagues,” declared UC Davis Chancellor Larry Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 1989, 21. N. Vanderhoef, “have so fully expressed the history, the values, 3 EDVN, 49. and the hopes of UC Davis.” 4 Nelson, Alan. Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de 30 Celeste Turner Wright, ‘Anthony Munday, ‘Edward’ Spenser, Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Liverpool: The University Press, 82. and E.K.’, PMLA 76 (1961), 34-39. 5 EDVN, 49) 6 SK 7 Oram op. cit., 33. 8 Oram op. cit., 33. (Benedick and Beatrice, cont. from p. 18) 9 See Alexander Grosart, The Works of Gabriel Harvey, D.C.L., AMS Press 1966 Reprint, I: XXV-XXXV. Once one is assigned to a particular seminar, one is locked into 10 Oram op. cit., 164. the venue. If the seminar leaders then turn you down, you’re 11 See Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, Shakespeare’s Tutors: just flat out of luck. The organization, meanwhile, can wash its The Education of Edward de Vere based an her BA thesis to hands of the entire process. In this case, however, we thought we Concordia University Department of Humanities, 200. Mark had an ace in the hole. We had been in touch with one seminar Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, New York: Go- participant, Dr. Marigold Pennyfeather, – like unto her name, tham Books, 2005, 6-11. Alan Nelson, writing from another a scholar wise beyond booklearning – who we understood was perspective (Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de sympathetic to our work and could be counted on to put in a good Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Liverpool: The University Press, word for us in case things came to that. 2003: 25-28), also acknowledges Smith’s formative influ- As before, the official organ of what one wry Stratfordian has ence on Oxford. termed “Shakesperotics” – the science and business of studying the 12 Nelson, 45. Bard – began with a warm welcome. This was dated October 23, 13 Nelson, 182. 2006. By December 2, however, the seminar leaders were engaged 14 Oram, op. cit., 171. in the administrative procedure known as the double-step shuffle. 15 For Oxford as the prototype for “Willy,” see J. Thomas Looney, Eventually, Beatrice was officially “warned” not to partici- Shakespeare Identified, London: Cecil Palmer, 1920, 338-49. pate in the seminar. Not only were we off topic, but no one in Eva Turner Clarke, on the other hand, identifies Oxford with the seminar, said the organizers, gave a damn about our topic. Cuddy. See her The Satirical Comedy, Love’s Labours Lost. Later we learned that Dr. Pennyfeather, when she did not recieve New York: William Farquhar Payson, 1933, 134. an advance copy of our essay along with the rest, had queried 16 Oram op. cit., 114. the organizers. No doubt she was told that the authors weren’t 17 EDVN, 49-55. interested anymore and had decided to drop out of the seminar; Winter 2009 Shakespeare Matters page 27

(Beatrice and Benedick, cont. from p. 26) not until after the fact, when the censorship was complete, did we learn that she had inquired after our paper, or she learn anything about the the ring-around-rosie-rag that SRU conference orga- nizers had employed to exhaust our valuable time and attempt to break our spirits. But hope springs eternal. Twice rebuffed, we decided to try the direct route to publication. Since the professionals at the Shakespeares-R-Us World Congress had assured us that our sub- mission would be suitable for publication in a technical journal, even if it was wholly unsuited to presentation at a professional conference as prestigious as their own, we thought we would try our hand at publication. Since one of us regularly publishes with some of the most important book publishers in the world, we thought we would start our inquiry at the top, and mailed a copy to the cutting edge, au-courant, Early Modern Lit-Crit Deconstructed. The articulate professionalism of our lone re- viewer furnished a breathtaking example of the comprehensive intellectual resources required to become a 21st century English Professor at a distinguished mid-Atlantic College, reviewing for a major journal:

OK, well, I’m not happy with this piece…Its not hard to discern that there’s an anti-Stratfordian agenda driving this move to Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I. knock out the Strachey letter….I don’t like the unspoken $ 14.50 with a check to Oxford Institute Press, agenda driving it… 8 William Street, Darien, CT 06820 ($24.50 plus shipping at Amazon.com). Please contact Criticism of our argument? None. It was sufficient to call [email protected] for discounts us names and allude to our supposed conspiratorial purposes. for classroom use. For into: www.oxfordinsti- Straw man 101. tutepress.com. Please contact EarlOfOxford@ The moral of our tale in academic wonderland? A dear friend optonline.net for discounts for classroom use. (and shy journalist) commented: “You have to respect the differ-

(Continued on p. 28) Paid Advertisment.

Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters Name:______

Address:______Regular member: e-member ($20/year)__ City:______State:____ZIP:______(Website; online newsletter) One year ($40/$50 overseas)__ Two year ($75/$105 overseas)___ Phone:______email:______Three year ($110/$155 overseas)___

Check enclosed____ Family/Institution: One year ($60/$75 overseas)___ Signature:______Two year ($115/$145 overseas)___ Three years ($170/$215 os)___ The Fellowship sincerely regrets that because of security and liability considerations, we can no longer accept credit card payments by mail. Patron ($75/year or over):___ Online credit card payments are still available, from www.shake- Total: ____ spearefellowshiponlinestore.com, using our affiliation with PayPal.

Please Make Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 421, Hudson, MA 01749. page 28 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2009

(Letters, cont. from p. 2) (Conference, cont. from p. 12) Oxfordian). To the Editor: None of the Stratfordian arguments stage doth staine pure gentle bloud.” are valid. Not the Strachey letter for The Charlton concentrated on Davies prompt- That Oxford died too soon to be Tempest, as demonstrated by Roger Strit- ing reference “Had`st thou not plaid some Shakespeare is a favorite Stratfordian matter and Lynne Kositsky in the Review Kingly parts in sport,” and presented an argument that is popping up more often. of English Studies, nor “equivocation” anonymous Elizabethan portrait – prob- It was used most recently in Las Vegas and the Gunpowder Plot for Macbeth, as ably representing Edward de Vere – in a (of all places) by Alan Nelson and Bill Ru- I hope I demonstrated persuasively in The most provocative kingly role, the role of binstein in a debate with Mark Anderson. Oxfordian of 2003. Henry IV, the first Lancastrian king, a (Shakespeare Matters, fall 2008) These are the two plays the Strat- role, according to Mr. Charlton, possibly Both of them should know better, fordians cite most often. Evidence for performed by Oxford in 1583. but it’s an easy point to score in a debate, post-1604 composition of the other ten is Alex McNeil, President of the Shake- and it’s a crowd pleaser. “How ridiculous either woefully inadequate or nonexistent. speare Fellowship an Oxfordian since 1992, for those Oxfordians!” is the response they Several are simply “assigned” dates after moderated an open discussion about the seek from an unwary audience. 1604. The Stratfordian dating for the dozen aspects of the authorship issue that trouble Mark Anderson responded with three allegedly post-1604 plays is not supported us the most, what we most recognize as excellent points of evidence showing that by the evidence. weak areas of the Oxfordian case. He listed all the Shakespeare plays were written three things that are troubling to him: the before 1604, when Oxford died. But it Richard F. Whalen nature of the relationship between Oxford is equally important, I would suggest, Truro, MA and William Shakespeare of Stratford, the to respond directly to the Stratfordian lack of an Oxfordian will upon his death in contention that the composition of a 1604, and the purpose for continuing the dozen Shakespeare plays can be dated after (Benedick and Beatrice, cont. from p. 27) ruse about Shakespeare’s true identity in Oxford died, and so he died too soon to be the First Folio. McNeil also asked the group Shakespeare. ence between live fish and dead fish. The to define one additional thing they would There’s no valid evidence that any of academics involved in the authorship issue most like to know about the Oxfordian the dozen allegedly post-1604 plays had to are almost all like dead fish going with the case. Some wanted to know more about have been written after 1604. No topical stream. You are the live ones, swimming the order of the sonnets. Also mentioned allusions uniquely post-1604. No necessary against it. It’s a Sisyphean task trying to were the circumstances surrounding sources after 1604. All could have been win points with them, not to mention get- the arrest of Southampton in 1604, the written before 1604, even years before. ting in to the academic journals, but you Crown signature, and whether or not Can the Stratfordians dredge up have to try, and if you just keep doing good Southampton had a claim to the throne. plausible arguments? Sure. Do they survive work, you’re eventually going to win out.” scrutiny? No (See my article in the 2007

Shakespeare Matters Inside this issue: The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxford’s Railing Muse...... 1 P.O. Box 65335 Baltimore, MD 21209 Benedick and Beatrice’s Excel- lent Adventure...... 1

Oxford on Cable TV?...... 1

Folger Library tries to Rescue the Strachey Theory...... 3

Oxford and Spenser’s EK...5